| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Apr 2005 04:43:20 PM |
| Object: |
ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS
The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
a question of WHEN human life begins. Many "pro-lifers" are
fundamentalist Christians but are unable to quote any clear
statements from their Bible indicating that human life begins
at conception. [And most of them, especially the Catholics,
are also against artificial birth control, which would
PREVENT the unwanted pregnancies to begin with! ] They are
apparently either ignorant of, or ignoring, GENESIS 2:7 KJV,
which states: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE,
and man became a living Soul.".
This Biblical statement indicates that human life begins
(Soul enters its new body) WHEN THE BODY TAKES ITS FIRST
BREATH OF AIR OUT-side THE WOMB. Therefore, if an aborted
fetus's lungs are too undeveloped to breathe, or if an older
fetus is biologically terminated IN-side the womb, then that
abortion can NOT be called "murder", because NO Soul was
present in the fetus.
A fetus is like a laptop computer with a working battery
but NO-one to operate it.
Another thing to consider is that each of us is
surrounded by a protective energy field usually called an
"AURA", as described in MANY books related to psychic
phenomena. A few people, including psychic futurist Gordon-
Michael Scallion, and the late "Sleeping Prophet" Edgar
Cayce, can actually SEE colored AURAs around people. The
Canadian scientist Frances Nixon developed a way to locate
the boundaries of a person's AURA.
One of the AURA's main purposes is to shield out
discarnate entities from a person's body. If an AURA becomes
weak, because of illness, injury, mind-altering drugs,
alcohol, etc., discarnate entities can sometimes invade and
cause insanity, possession, multiple personalities, etc..
THE AURA OF A HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN WOULD LIKEWISE
PREVENT A SOUL FROM ENTERING THE FETUS INSIDE HER.
A Soul that is seeking to REincarnate into this world
KNOWS if Its intended fetus is likely to be aborted before
birth or terminated immediately after birth, and will simply
STAY OUT OF IT.
The purpose of laws in a free country like the United
States should be to protect INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, and prevent
it from being violated by others, NOT to stifle it in the
name of power, control, exploitation, ORTHODOX RELIGION, or
the money-god. Any man-made law which fails that test is
automatically and immediately UN-Constitutional, null and
void.
The INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM of a pregnant woman to control
her own body must likewise be protected.
If the "pro-lifers" would show as much concern for ALL
People AFTER birth as they do for fetus's before birth, the
world could rapidly become a decent place to live in.
Robert E. McElwaine
Eckankar Initiate
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
P.S.: LIKE THE TALIBAN, fundamentalist Christians want to
create and MIS-use man-made laws to IMPOSE their self-
righteous religious values against the rest of us.
P.S.2: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS stranger than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 12:18:33 AM |
|
|
alen <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Attila wrote:
The status of human being is not determined by science but by society
and the law. Science determines what is human and stops at that
point.
There is a clear, fundamental difference between a
fertilised egg and an unfertilised egg. An unfertilised
egg has no developmental activity within it that will
result in this or that particular human being.
Of course it does. Somewhat in a state of suspension, but
it exists nonetheless.
But a
fertilised egg possesses a developmental activity that
will definitely result in a particular human being,
Wrong. Your suppostion that people are defined wholly by genes
is complete incorrect. Further, a single egg may result in anywhere
from zero to about six individual human beings at birth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 12:08:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply put, is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the start of a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about human
reproduction/development? The start of each individuals life begins
once they start developing, i.e. fertilisation (hint: why do you think
its also called conception?).
TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT!
And just because you don't like it, or traditionally this hasn't been
recognised, doesn't make it not so.
Is it some weird religious belief that makes you think the soul enters
the (already existing) body at birth? It goes against all science and
logic, Perhaps you are just in denial?
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 12:55:12 AM |
|
|
AntiSocial wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply put, is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the start of
a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about human
reproduction/development? The start of each individuals life begins
once they start developing, i.e. fertilisation (hint: why do you
think
its also called conception?).
TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT!
And just because you don't like it, or traditionally this hasn't
been
recognised, doesn't make it not so.
Is it some weird religious belief that makes you think the soul
enters
the (already existing) body at birth? It goes against all science
and
logic, Perhaps you are just in denial?
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings begin
their life at birth. When science proves that they have been developing
for 9 months before birth. I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the earth
is flat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 12:21:51 PM |
|
|
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply put, is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the start of
a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about human
reproduction/development? The start of each individuals life begins
once they start developing, i.e. fertilisation (hint: why do you
think
its also called conception?).
TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT!
And just because you don't like it, or traditionally this hasn't
been
recognised, doesn't make it not so.
Is it some weird religious belief that makes you think the soul
enters
the (already existing) body at birth? It goes against all science
and
logic, Perhaps you are just in denial?
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings begin
their life at birth.
I can read.
When science proves that they have been developing
for 9 months before birth.
That's a lie. Science says nothing about what a "human being" is.
And human development starts with meiosis.
I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the earth
is flat.
We can see that YOUR argument is purely a religious one.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 10:52:00 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the start
of
a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about
human
reproduction/development? The start of each individuals life
begins
once they start developing, i.e. fertilisation (hint: why do you
think
its also called conception?).
TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT!
And just because you don't like it, or traditionally this hasn't
been
recognised, doesn't make it not so.
Is it some weird religious belief that makes you think the soul
enters
the (already existing) body at birth? It goes against all
science
and
logic, Perhaps you are just in denial?
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings
begin
their life at birth.
I can read.
You can?? Try READING this, and try to UNDERSYAND it as well....
Human being n: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae
[syn: homo, man, human]
"Embryo (em-bre-o) the young of any organism in an early stage of
development; in humans, the developing organism from fertilization to
the end of the eighth week in utero." Tortora, G. (1995) Harper
Collins College Publishers. Principles of Human anatomy 7th Edition, p
G-15.
When science proves that they have been developing
for 9 months before birth.
That's a lie. Science says nothing about what a "human being" is.
And human development starts with meiosis.
No, meiosis occurs BEFORE fertilisation (the earliest possible time a
human can start development). Science says the start of human
development occurs at fertilisation.
I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the
earth
is flat.
We can see that YOUR argument is purely a religious one.
Nope I just use a few basic facts to back up my argument, you on the
other hand....do not!
If you are do SURE why can't you cite some scientific facts that even
SUGGEST development begins at birth? Good luck!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 11:57:58 PM |
|
|
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the start
of
a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about
human
reproduction/development? The start of each individuals life
begins
once they start developing, i.e. fertilisation (hint: why do you
think
its also called conception?).
TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT!
And just because you don't like it, or traditionally this hasn't
been
recognised, doesn't make it not so.
Is it some weird religious belief that makes you think the soul
enters
the (already existing) body at birth? It goes against all
science
and
logic, Perhaps you are just in denial?
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings
begin
their life at birth.
I can read.
You can?? Try READING this, and try to UNDERSYAND it as well....
Human being n: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae
[syn: homo, man, human]
Which excludes fetuses and embryos because until birth they are not
separate individuals.
When science proves that they have been developing
for 9 months before birth.
That's a lie. Science says nothing about what a "human being" is.
And human development starts with meiosis.
No, meiosis occurs BEFORE fertilisation
That's the point, moron.
(the earliest possible time a
human can start development)
That's a lie, moron.
Science says the start of human
development occurs at fertilisation.
Stop lying, moron. Science says nothing of the sort.
I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the
earth
is flat.
We can see that YOUR argument is purely a religious one.
Nope I just use a few basic facts to back up my argument,
You use lies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 10:52:02 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the start
of
a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about
human
reproduction/development? The start of each individuals life
begins
once they start developing, i.e. fertilisation (hint: why do you
think
its also called conception?).
TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT!
And just because you don't like it, or traditionally this hasn't
been
recognised, doesn't make it not so.
Is it some weird religious belief that makes you think the soul
enters
the (already existing) body at birth? It goes against all
science
and
logic, Perhaps you are just in denial?
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings
begin
their life at birth.
I can read.
You can?? Try READING this, and try to UNDERSYAND it as well....
Human being n: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae
[syn: homo, man, human]
"Embryo (em-bre-o) the young of any organism in an early stage of
development; in humans, the developing organism from fertilization to
the end of the eighth week in utero." Tortora, G. (1995) Harper
Collins College Publishers. Principles of Human anatomy 7th Edition, p
G-15.
When science proves that they have been developing
for 9 months before birth.
That's a lie. Science says nothing about what a "human being" is.
And human development starts with meiosis.
No, meiosis occurs BEFORE fertilisation (the earliest possible time a
human can start development). Science says the start of human
development occurs at fertilisation.
I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the
earth
is flat.
We can see that YOUR argument is purely a religious one.
Nope I just use a few basic facts to back up my argument, you on the
other hand....do not!
If you are do SURE why can't you cite some scientific facts that even
SUGGEST development begins at birth? Good luck!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 10:52:17 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the start
of
a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about
human
reproduction/development? The start of each individuals life
begins
once they start developing, i.e. fertilisation (hint: why do you
think
its also called conception?).
TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT!
And just because you don't like it, or traditionally this hasn't
been
recognised, doesn't make it not so.
Is it some weird religious belief that makes you think the soul
enters
the (already existing) body at birth? It goes against all
science
and
logic, Perhaps you are just in denial?
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings
begin
their life at birth.
I can read.
You can?? Try READING this, and try to UNDERSYAND it as well....
Human being n: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae
[syn: homo, man, human]
"Embryo (em-bre-o) the young of any organism in an early stage of
development; in humans, the developing organism from fertilization to
the end of the eighth week in utero." Tortora, G. (1995) Harper
Collins College Publishers. Principles of Human anatomy 7th Edition, p
G-15.
When science proves that they have been developing
for 9 months before birth.
That's a lie. Science says nothing about what a "human being" is.
And human development starts with meiosis.
No, meiosis occurs BEFORE fertilisation (the earliest possible time a
human can start development). Science says the start of human
development occurs at fertilisation.
I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the
earth
is flat.
We can see that YOUR argument is purely a religious one.
Nope I just use a few basic facts to back up my argument, you on the
other hand....do not!
If you are so SURE why can't you cite some scientific facts that even
SUGGEST development begins at birth? Good luck!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 07:31:47 PM |
|
|
wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply put, is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the start of
a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about human
reproduction/development? The start of each individuals life begins
once they start developing, i.e. fertilisation (hint: why do you
think
its also called conception?).
TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT!
And just because you don't like it, or traditionally this hasn't
been
recognised, doesn't make it not so.
Is it some weird religious belief that makes you think the soul
enters
the (already existing) body at birth? It goes against all science
and
logic, Perhaps you are just in denial?
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings begin
their life at birth. When science proves that they have been developing
for 9 months before birth. I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the earth
is flat.
You're getting on to a whole other topic, son. Let's stick with the one
at hand, then get into the problems with the term "development"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 10:57:28 PM |
|
|
AntiSocial wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the start
of
a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about
human
reproduction/development? The start of each individuals life
begins
once they start developing, i.e. fertilisation (hint: why do you
think
its also called conception?).
TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT!
And just because you don't like it, or traditionally this hasn't
been
recognised, doesn't make it not so.
Is it some weird religious belief that makes you think the soul
enters
the (already existing) body at birth? It goes against all science
and
logic, Perhaps you are just in denial?
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings
begin
their life at birth. When science proves that they have been
developing
for 9 months before birth. I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the
earth
is flat.
You're getting on to a whole other topic, son.
Trying to understand where some people get their ideas realted to this
topic, is staying on this topic.
Let's stick with the one
at hand, then get into the problems with the term "development"
What problem with the term development? Do you know the difference
between development and reproduction? Reproduction creates a NEW
entity, in humans a NEW human, once sexual reproduction is complete
(fertilisation) the new entity (human being in this case) only grows
through different stAges of development, like from embryonic to feotal
to neonatal etc. One does not become MORE human with development, you
either are (from fertilisation) or you aren't (death).
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 03:44:55 AM |
|
|
wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the start
of
a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about
human
reproduction/development? The start of each individuals life
begins
once they start developing, i.e. fertilisation (hint: why do you
think
its also called conception?).
TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT!
And just because you don't like it, or traditionally this hasn't
been
recognised, doesn't make it not so.
Is it some weird religious belief that makes you think the soul
enters
the (already existing) body at birth? It goes against all science
and
logic, Perhaps you are just in denial?
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings
begin
their life at birth. When science proves that they have been
developing
for 9 months before birth. I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the
earth
is flat.
You're getting on to a whole other topic, son.
Trying to understand where some people get their ideas realted to this
topic, is staying on this topic.
From my standpoint, you appeared to be doing nothing more than trying
to find some new friends to help you gang up on the big bad man.
And since the topic I was proposing had to do with science, logic, and
the idea of a soul, you went on to a tangent/semi-attack on someone else
that had nothing to do with what I had asked, instead casting out for
support to yourself. Thus, you went off the topic of "Science, logic,
and soul"
Let's stick with the one
at hand, then get into the problems with the term "development"
What problem with the term development?
deˇvelˇop (d-vlp)
v. deˇvelˇoped, deˇvelˇopˇing, deˇvelˇops
1. To progress from earlier to later stages of a life cycle.
2. To progress from earlier to later or from simpler to more complex
stages of evolution.
3. To aid in the growth of; strengthen.
4. To grow by degrees into a more advanced or mature state.
5. To become affected with a disease; contract.
By bringing in the term devlopment as a basis for being against abortion
"TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT" you have also
opened up to the idea that a cancerous tumor is also a human being as it
is a fully human cell, with 46 chromosones, that too is developing,
multiplying, and growing. A tumor fits four of the five above
definitions - be careful what you use as conditions for humanity.
Do you know the difference
between development and reproduction? Reproduction creates a NEW
entity, in humans a NEW human,
Again, incorrect. Reproduction can be both sexual and asexual. Every
living cell on this planet reproduces constantly via division.
once sexual reproduction is complete
(fertilisation) the new entity (human being in this case) only grows
through different stAges of development, like from embryonic to feotal
to neonatal etc.
Or from benign to malignant to terminal - once again, you have yet to
differentiate between a fetus and a tumor.
One does not become MORE human with development, you
either are (from fertilisation) or you aren't (death).
And a third time, you present a premice that can be applied to both a
fetus and a tumor.
Note that I have yet to state where I stand on abortion; I've simply
pointed out when you've used ambiguous language.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
19 Apr 2005 10:58:24 PM |
|
|
AntiSocial wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com wrote:
The actual act of abortion is called the "termination of
pregnancy."
They
try to avoid the moral issue. But the honest truth, simply
put,
is
this:
Abortion is the killing of a human.
And that's a bald-faced lie. For all of human history the
start
of
a
human's life has been marked by mirth.
Ray, you are either a compulsive liar, or very ignorant about
human
reproduction/development? The start of each individuals life
begins
once they start developing, i.e. fertilisation (hint: why do you
think
its also called conception?).
TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT!
And just because you don't like it, or traditionally this hasn't
been
recognised, doesn't make it not so.
Is it some weird religious belief that makes you think the soul
enters
the (already existing) body at birth? It goes against all
science
and
logic, Perhaps you are just in denial?
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings
begin
their life at birth. When science proves that they have been
developing
for 9 months before birth. I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the
earth
is flat.
You're getting on to a whole other topic, son.
Trying to understand where some people get their ideas realted to
this
topic, is staying on this topic.
From my standpoint, you appeared to be doing nothing more than
trying
to find some new friends to help you gang up on the big bad man.
No I am just stated facts related to my 'anti induced abortion (unless
the mothers life is at risk)' stance. What big bad man?
And since the topic I was proposing had to do with science, logic,
and
the idea of a soul, you went on to a tangent/semi-attack on someone
else
that had nothing to do with what I had asked, instead casting out for
support to yourself. Thus, you went off the topic of "Science, logic,
and soul"
The topic we were discussing was about when human beings began their
life, I used science and logic, and questioned Rays belief a human
being begins their life at birth (some 9 months after they have been
alive). The only mention I made of soul was to query whether he
believes that a soul comes into the already existing body at birth.
Let's stick with the one
at hand, then get into the problems with the term "development"
What problem with the term development?
de=B7vel=B7op (d-vlp)
v. de=B7vel=B7oped, de=B7vel=B7op=B7ing, de=B7vel=B7ops
1. To progress from earlier to later stages of a life cycle.
2. To progress from earlier to later or from simpler to more
complex
stages of evolution.
3. To aid in the growth of; strengthen.
4. To grow by degrees into a more advanced or mature state.
5. To become affected with a disease; contract.
By bringing in the term devlopment as a basis for being against
abortion
"TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT" you have also
opened up to the idea that a cancerous tumor is also a human being as
it
is a fully human cell, with 46 chromosones, that too is developing,
multiplying, and growing. A tumor fits four of the five above
definitions - be careful what you use as conditions for humanity.
Doesn't do much for the argument that human beings don't begin their
lives at conception. Are you a tumor? you can abort any tumor or mole,
no worries.
Do you know the difference
between development and reproduction? Reproduction creates a NEW
entity, in humans a NEW human,
Again, incorrect. Reproduction can be both sexual and asexual.
No I was correct. Human reproduction is sexual, meaning that the
conceptus is the genetic offspring of BOTH parents
Every
living cell on this planet reproduces constantly via division.
Yes. Although quite different to sexual reproduction. My anaomy text
gives two definitions for reproduction, the one you mentioned above
where new cells cells are produced for growth, repair or replacement.
The other is simpy put as 'the production of a new individual'. This
this is an abortion discussion we are only talking about the sexual
reproduction of a new human being.
once sexual reproduction is complete
(fertilisation) the new entity (human being in this case) only
grows
through different stAges of development, like from embryonic to
feotal
to neonatal etc.
Or from benign to malignant to terminal - once again, you have yet to
differentiate between a fetus and a tumor.
What is the difference between you and a tumor? Abort tumors, no
worries.
One does not become MORE human with development, you
either are (from fertilisation) or you aren't (death).
And a third time, you present a premice that can be applied to both a
fetus and a tumor.
No. Just because you can't tell the difference. What is the difference
between you and a tumor? chances are the same differences between a
embryo and a tumor.
Note that I have yet to state where I stand on abortion; I've simply
pointed out when you've used ambiguous language.
No, you've pointed out that you don't know the difference between a
human being and a tumor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
20 Apr 2005 02:16:11 AM |
|
|
From my standpoint, you appeared to be doing nothing more than
trying
to find some new friends to help you gang up on the big bad man.
No I am just stated facts related to my 'anti induced abortion (unless
the mothers life is at risk)' stance. What big bad man?
And since the topic I was proposing had to do with science, logic,
and
the idea of a soul, you went on to a tangent/semi-attack on someone
else
that had nothing to do with what I had asked, instead casting out for
support to yourself. Thus, you went off the topic of "Science, logic,
and soul"
The topic we were discussing was about when human beings began their
life,
No, the topic I was discussing was how a soul coincides with science and
logic.
I used science and logic,
Really? By all means, show me your argument, whether inductive or
deductive, and the premises you use to support your conclusion.
and questioned Rays belief a human
being begins their life at birth (some 9 months after they have been
alive). The only mention I made of soul was to query whether he
believes that a soul comes into the already existing body at birth.
Let's stick with the one
at hand, then get into the problems with the term "development"
What problem with the term development?
deˇvelˇop (d-vlp)
v. deˇvelˇoped, deˇvelˇopˇing, deˇvelˇops
1. To progress from earlier to later stages of a life cycle.
2. To progress from earlier to later or from simpler to more
complex
stages of evolution.
3. To aid in the growth of; strengthen.
4. To grow by degrees into a more advanced or mature state.
5. To become affected with a disease; contract.
By bringing in the term devlopment as a basis for being against
abortion
"TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT" you have also
opened up to the idea that a cancerous tumor is also a human being as
it
is a fully human cell, with 46 chromosones, that too is developing,
multiplying, and growing. A tumor fits four of the five above
definitions - be careful what you use as conditions for humanity.
Doesn't do much for the argument that human beings don't begin their
lives at conception.
I wasn't addressing that, I was addressing your poor use of vocabulary.
As stated, if "developing" is all that is needed to be human, than a
tumor fits just as well as an embryo and thus, you can not be opposed to
cancer treatments designed to save lives since that would be terminating
a "human".
Are you a tumor?
Well, I am a set of cells containing 46 chromosomes that is constantly
developing and growing - care to revise your definition?
you can abort any tumor or mole,
no worries.
Do you know the difference
between development and reproduction? Reproduction creates a NEW
entity, in humans a NEW human,
Again, incorrect. Reproduction can be both sexual and asexual.
No I was correct. Human reproduction is sexual, meaning that the
conceptus is the genetic offspring of BOTH parents
No, you were, once again, using poorly-defined terms. "Reproduction"
does not always create a "new" entity. Thus, if you're speaking about
only human reproduction, use that term and that term alone.
Every
living cell on this planet reproduces constantly via division.
Yes. Although quite different to sexual reproduction. My anaomy text
gives two definitions for reproduction, the one you mentioned above
where new cells cells are produced for growth, repair or replacement.
The other is simpy put as 'the production of a new individual'. This
this is an abortion discussion we are only talking about the sexual
reproduction of a new human being.
Then say that in the first place, rather than simply speaking of
"development" and reproduction" and claiming that they only apply in the
human sense. That is only the case if you specify so.
once sexual reproduction is complete
(fertilisation) the new entity (human being in this case) only
grows
through different stAges of development, like from embryonic to
feotal
to neonatal etc.
Or from benign to malignant to terminal - once again, you have yet to
differentiate between a fetus and a tumor.
What is the difference between you and a tumor? Abort tumors, no
worries.
According to the definitions you've given, absolutely none - thus, until
you either a) amend your definitions, or b) begin protesting cancer
treatments, you are in the wrong.
One does not become MORE human with development, you
either are (from fertilisation) or you aren't (death).
And a third time, you present a premice that can be applied to both a
fetus and a tumor.
No. Just because you can't tell the difference.
The only reason it appears so, in the context of this debate, is because
I am limiting myself to the definitions YOU have given. Feel free to get
back to me when you lose the ambiguity in your terms.
What is the difference
between you and a tumor? chances are the same differences between a
embryo and a tumor.
Note that I have yet to state where I stand on abortion; I've simply
pointed out when you've used ambiguous language.
No, you've pointed out that you don't know the difference between a
human being and a tumor.
What can I say, I'm stooping to your level of discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
24 Apr 2005 01:55:21 AM |
|
|
AntiSocial wrote:
From my standpoint, you appeared to be doing nothing more than
trying
to find some new friends to help you gang up on the big bad man.
No I am just stated facts related to my 'anti induced abortion
(unless
the mothers life is at risk)' stance. What big bad man?
And since the topic I was proposing had to do with science, logic,
and
the idea of a soul, you went on to a tangent/semi-attack on someone
else
that had nothing to do with what I had asked, instead casting out
for
support to yourself. Thus, you went off the topic of "Science,
logic,
and soul"
The topic we were discussing was about when human beings began
their
life,
No, the topic I was discussing was how a soul coincides with science
and
logic.
I used science and logic,
Really? By all means, show me your argument, whether inductive or
deductive, and the premises you use to support your conclusion.
Proven common knowledge is all i've mentioned
and questioned Rays belief a human
being begins their life at birth (some 9 months after they have
been
alive). The only mention I made of soul was to query whether he
believes that a soul comes into the already existing body at birth.
Let's stick with the one
at hand, then get into the problems with the term "development"
What problem with the term development?
de=B7vel=B7op (d-vlp)
v. de=B7vel=B7oped, de=B7vel=B7op=B7ing, de=B7vel=B7ops
1. To progress from earlier to later stages of a life cycle.
2. To progress from earlier to later or from simpler to more
complex
stages of evolution.
3. To aid in the growth of; strengthen.
4. To grow by degrees into a more advanced or mature state.
5. To become affected with a disease; contract.
By bringing in the term devlopment as a basis for being against
abortion
"TIP: Foetal and embryonic are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT" you have also
opened up to the idea that a cancerous tumor is also a human being
as
it
is a fully human cell, with 46 chromosones, that too is developing,
multiplying, and growing. A tumor fits four of the five above
definitions - be careful what you use as conditions for humanity.
Be careful before you assume two things are the same because they share
a few characteristics. See if you can find out how they differ.
Doesn't do much for the argument that human beings don't begin
their
lives at conception.
I wasn't addressing that,
Because there is nothing to address, it's common knowledge..
I was addressing your poor use of vocabulary.
?
As stated, if "developing" is all that is needed to be human,
No, thats not all thats needed to be human. Thus you can see how you've
gone wrong.
than a
tumor fits just as well as an embryo and thus, you can not be opposed
to
cancer treatments designed to save lives since that would be
terminating
a "human".
No, see above. Do some research, see if you can find the differences to
a young human being and a tumor?
Are you a tumor?
Well, I am a set of cells containing 46 chromosomes that is
constantly
developing and growing - care to revise your definition?
Yes or no? whats the difference between you and a tumor? It's not my
definition
you can abort any tumor or mole,
no worries.
Do you know the difference
between development and reproduction? Reproduction creates a NEW
entity, in humans a NEW human,
Again, incorrect. Reproduction can be both sexual and asexual.
No I was correct. Human reproduction is sexual, meaning that the
conceptus is the genetic offspring of BOTH parents
No, you were, once again, using poorly-defined terms. "Reproduction"
does not always create a "new" entity.
If reproduction is SUCCESSFUL then a new human is created.
Thus, if you're speaking about
only human reproduction, use that term and that term alone.
It's not up to me to point out the bleedin' obvious to you.
Every
living cell on this planet reproduces constantly via division.
Yes. Although quite different to sexual reproduction. My anaomy
text
gives two definitions for reproduction, the one you mentioned above
where new cells cells are produced for growth, repair or
replacement.
The other is simpy put as 'the production of a new individual'.
This
this is an abortion discussion we are only talking about the sexual
reproduction of a new human being.
Then say that in the first place, rather than simply speaking of
"development" and reproduction" and claiming that they only apply in
the
human sense. That is only the case if you specify so.
Why should I when its obvious, we are talking about abortion! Human
abortion! Why would I be talking about anything else than human
reproduction?
once sexual reproduction is complete
(fertilisation) the new entity (human being in this case) only
grows
through different stAges of development, like from embryonic to
feotal
to neonatal etc.
Or from benign to malignant to terminal - once again, you have yet
to
differentiate between a fetus and a tumor.
Hopefully most doctors can tell the difference, see if you can do some
research and find out?
What is the difference between you and a tumor? Abort tumors, no
worries.
According to the definitions you've given, absolutely none - thus,
until
you either a) amend your definitions,
They're not MY definitions
or b) begin protesting cancer
treatments, you are in the wrong.
A tumor is different to a young human, see if you can find the
differences?
One does not become MORE human with development, you
either are (from fertilisation) or you aren't (death).
And a third time, you present a premice that can be applied to both
a
fetus and a tumor.
No, a feotus is not a tumor.
No. Just because you can't tell the difference.
The only reason it appears so, in the context of this debate, is
because
I am limiting myself to the definitions YOU have given. Feel free to
get
back to me when you lose the ambiguity in your terms.
Look up characterisics of human beings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human will help
What is the difference
between you and a tumor? chances are the same differences between a
embryo and a tumor.
Note that I have yet to state where I stand on abortion; I've
simply
pointed out when you've used ambiguous language.
No, you've pointed out that you don't know the difference between a
human being and a tumor.
What can I say, I'm stooping to your level of discussion.
Umm, no. You just assume that a tumor is the same as a human being
because they share a few characteristics.
"Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin
for "knowing man"): a bipedal primate belonging to the superfamily of
Hominoidea, with all of the apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans,
and gibbons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
And since a developing human embryo is NOT the mother, or the father
but the genetic offspring of both, they are homo sapiens
"Humans have an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for
manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain and consequent
capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
This does not mean that before your limbs have grown, you are not a
human being, or people born with physical impairments are not human
beings. A tumor is NEVER going to have this characteristic.
"Behaviorally, human beings are defined by their use of language; their
organization into complex social structures composed of many
cooperating and competing groups, nations, states, and institutions,
distinguished by their different aims and ritual practices; and their
development of complex technology. These behavioral differences have
given rise to myriad cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs,
myths, rituals, values, and social norms."
The human conceptus will use language, a tumor NEVER will.
These are only a basic example.
Why do you think a death certificate is required for a human conceptus
post 20 weeks development? because they are young human beings maybe?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 06:04:57 AM |
|
|
On 11 Apr 2005 22:55:12 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1113285312.126230.243090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings begin
their life at birth.
No, a human being does not exist before live birth. "Beginning life"
has nothing to do with it.
When science proves that they have been developing
for 9 months before birth.
Irrelevant.
I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Prove a soul exists.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the earth
is flat.
A human being has been born alive. Before birth there is a fetus, not
a human being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 10:46:31 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On 11 Apr 2005 22:55:12 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1113285312.126230.243090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings
begin
their life at birth.
No, a human being does not exist before live birth. "Beginning life"
has nothing to do with it.
Human beings develop for around 9 months before birth. Development
begins at fertilisation. If you respect human life just because they
are human, and not because a certain idividual holds value to you, then
yyou have a hard time defending a barbaric practice such as abortion
(induced)
When science proves that they have been developing
for 9 months before birth.
Irrelevant.
Very relevant if you respect human life, other than because the
individual concerned has value to you
I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Prove a soul exists.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the
earth
is flat.
A human being has been born alive. Before birth there is a fetus,
not
a human being.
And what do you think a foetus is? A stage of reproduction, like
meiosis? Or a stage of DEVELOPMENT, like neonatal? I think you'll find
that foetal is a STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, and a feotus literally is a very
young human being, and hence is defined as such.
"Embryo /embreo/ n (pl. -os) 1a an unborn or unhatched offspring. b
a human offspring in the first eight weeks from conception. 2 a
rudimentary plant contained in a seed. 3 a thing in a rudimentary
stage. 4 (attrib.) undeveloped, immature." The Oxford English
Reference Dictionary. Oxford University Press 1995, 1996. Chief ed.
Patrick Hanks, p460.
"Embryo (em-bre-o) the young of any organism in an early stage of
development; in humans, the developing organism from fertilization to
the end of the eighth week in utero." Tortora, G. (1995) Harper
Collins College Publishers. Principles of Human anatomy 7th Edition, p
G-15.
Most high school student can usually grasp the FACT that placental
mammals young develop (in their early stages) in their mothers womb,
whay can't you? Denial? Brainwashing? Religious dogma?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 12:21:54 AM |
|
|
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings
begin
their life at birth.
No, a human being does not exist before live birth. "Beginning life"
has nothing to do with it.
Human beings develop for around 9 months before birth. Development
begins at fertilisation.
Pro-lie disinformation. Development actually begins at meiosis.
If you respect human life just because they
are human, and not because a certain idividual holds value to you, then
Then you reject making women into slaves to your selfish demands.
But you do NOT respect people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 11:56:14 PM |
|
|
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings
begin
their life at birth.
No, a human being does not exist before live birth. "Beginning life"
has nothing to do with it.
Human beings develop for around 9 months before birth. Development
begins at fertilisation.
Pro-lie disinformation. Development actually begins at neiosis.
If you respect human life just because they
are human, and not because a certain idividual holds value to you, then
Then you reject making women into slaves to your selfish demands.
But you do NOT respect people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 01:01:30 AM |
|
|
On 14 Apr 2005 20:46:31 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id <1113536791.225680.60910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
Attila wrote:
On 11 Apr 2005 22:55:12 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1113285312.126230.243090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all
science and logic?
Just wondering why some people like Ray think that human beings
begin
their life at birth.
No, a human being does not exist before live birth. "Beginning life"
has nothing to do with it.
Human beings develop for around 9 months before birth.
A human fetus so develops.
Development
begins at fertilisation. If you respect human life just because they
are human, and not because a certain idividual holds value to you, then
yyou have a hard time defending a barbaric practice such as abortion
(induced)
Irrelevant.
Abortion is a simple safe medical remedy for an unwanted condition.
When science proves that they have been developing
for 9 months before birth.
Irrelevant.
Very relevant if you respect human life, other than because the
individual concerned has value to you
Are humans an endangered species? Where is the requirement that each
individual person must exist?
I was wondering if it was some kinda'
religious/cult belief in the 'soul' entering the body at birth.
Prove a soul exists.
Believing that a humans life begins at birth is like thinking the
earth
is flat.
A human being has been born alive. Before birth there is a fetus,
not
a human being.
And what do you think a foetus is? A stage of reproduction, like
meiosis? Or a stage of DEVELOPMENT, like neonatal? I think you'll find
that foetal is a STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, and a feotus literally is a very
young human being, and hence is defined as such.
No it is not. It is a human fetus, and nothing more.,
"Embryo /embreo/ n (pl. -os) 1a an unborn or unhatched offspring. b
a human offspring in the first eight weeks from conception. 2 a
rudimentary plant contained in a seed. 3 a thing in a rudimentary
stage. 4 (attrib.) undeveloped, immature." The Oxford English
Reference Dictionary. Oxford University Press 1995, 1996. Chief ed.
Patrick Hanks, p460.
"Embryo (em-bre-o) the young of any organism in an early stage of
development; in humans, the developing organism from fertilization to
the end of the eighth week in utero." Tortora, G. (1995) Harper
Collins College Publishers. Principles of Human anatomy 7th Edition, p
G-15.
I see nothing there referring to human beings or persons. A lot about
young, offspring, and unhatched however.
Most high school student can usually grasp the FACT that placental
mammals young develop (in their early stages) in their mothers womb,
whay can't you? Denial? Brainwashing? Religious dogma?
I do not dispute where a fetus develops. I do dispute it being a
human being. That requires live birth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 07:05:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 03:20:42 PM |
|
|
In article <7vpk51tsba3kt3mhlvf2c77viion0l5v8r@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
No more illogical than to insist on a soul without evidence for one.
And evolution shows signs of being able to explain much of morality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 03:26:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:20:42 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <7vpk51tsba3kt3mhlvf2c77viion0l5v8r@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
No more illogical than to insist on a soul without evidence for one.
And evolution shows signs of being able to explain much of morality.
You don't even need evolution. Game theory does it nicely.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 03:17:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:05:41 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <7vpk51tsba3kt3mhlvf2c77viion0l5v8r@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Nonsense. Prove a soul exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 07:24:30 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:05:41 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <7vpk51tsba3kt3mhlvf2c77viion0l5v8r@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Nonsense. Prove a soul exists.
I wanna se if the boy can understand basic logic concepts before I go
asking for something advance like a proof.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eraser" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 08:23:58 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:05:41 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <7vpk51tsba3kt3mhlvf2c77viion0l5v8r@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH
all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Nonsense. Prove a soul exists.
Please define that which you demand proven.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 09:25:08 AM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2005 06:23:58 -0700, "Eraser" <eraser92156@yahoo.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1113312238.586954.18180@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:05:41 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <7vpk51tsba3kt3mhlvf2c77viion0l5v8r@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessi | | | | | |
