Political Crossfire Forums

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: However, I still don't believe that conception is the moment of life. I cant see how people can come to any other conclusion. When a new human life is conceived, the blueprints are set for a unique human individual. I mean isnt it obvious to any first grader that sex makes babies? With a more complex understanding of what happens, its still obvious that sexual reproduction is just that, reproduction which if successful results in conception and the beginning of a new life.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

AllAmericanMan wrote: I cant see how people can come to any other conclusion. When a new human life is conceived, the blueprints are set for a unique human individual. I mean isnt it obvious to any first grader that sex makes babies? With a more complex understanding of what happens, its still obvious that sexual reproduction is just that, reproduction which if successful results in conception and the beginning of a new life.

Blueprints for a building are not the same as the actual building, so going off of plans shows that it is the potential to become the actual. I reach my definition of human life based off of the individual thought and sentience of the individual. Also, I go based upon the self-sustenance of the individual though breath, awareness, and thought.

To me, an embryo is the potential to become those things, but is not yet an actual human being.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: Blueprints for a building are not the same as the actual building Were not talking about buildings. When I say blueprints Im refering to genetic code in the developing human life.

Quote: I reach my definition of human life based off of the individual thought and sentience of the individual. Also, I go based upon the self-sustenance of the individual though breath, awareness, and thought.

These are merely characteristics of a fully grown adult which take time to grow. Basically youre pointing out how young an individual is inside the mother and saying that makes them subhuman. They are not subhuman just young.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

very yooung

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: Ah, but masturbation instead of impregnantion is denying the potential of a person who could cure cancer, right? No as I explained very clearly, a sperm will never grow intoa human on its own and it carries only half the genetic code. Only through conception is a new unique human individual formed. But there is no conception without the sperm. The potentials needed include the sperm.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

An embryo is not sub-human, because it is not yet human. A pebble is not a "sub-rock", and a seed is not a "sub-plant". They are two different things, and cannot be compared. The embryo is the potential to become a human, just as the seed is the potential to become a plant.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: An embryo is not sub-human, because it is not yet human. A pebble is not a "sub-rock", and a seed is not a "sub-plant". They are two different things, and cannot be compared. The embryo is the potential to become a human, just as the seed is the potential to become a plant. What do you call what is happening in a newly conceived embryo? What species is it? It will grow into an adult (hopefully) if given time, so what species is it? Its parents have mated to create it, what species is it? If not human, wtf is it?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

AllAmericanMan wrote: What do you call what is happening in a newly conceived embryo? What species is it? It will grow into an adult (hopefully) if given time, so what species is it? Its parents have mated to create it, what species is it? If not human, wtf is it?

An embryo is not a human, it is the potential to become a human. I am not arguing that if left alone, it will grow into a human, and become a human at birth; just as a seed grows into a plant. An embryo is also not life, it is the potential to become that human life; just as a seed is the potential to become plant life. An embryo is the potential to become a member of the human species; just as a rose seed is the potential to become a rose. It is not human, it is the potential to become human. Until it draws its first breath, it is potential.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: An embryo is not sub-human, because it is not yet human. A pebble is not a "sub-rock", and a seed is not a "sub-plant". They are two different things, and cannot be compared. The embryo is the potential to become a human, just as the seed is the potential to become a plant. just like a pebble has the potential to become a rock? o wait, it is a rock. and a seed is a very young plant.

Quote: wtf is it? its a cow since we slaughter them too and its okay. (Im not against eating meat or killing cows for food.)

Quote: it is potential. scientific proof = 0
scietists that claim this= 0
relative claim strength =0%

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

Plodder wrote: Quote: An embryo is not sub-human, because it is not yet human. A pebble is not a "sub-rock", and a seed is not a "sub-plant". They are two different things, and cannot be compared. The embryo is the potential to become a human, just as the seed is the potential to become a plant. just like a pebble has the potential to become a rock? o wait, it is a rock. and a seed is a very young plant.

If you read the post, I stated that a seed is the potential to become a plant, and I made no such claim about rocks and pebbles.

Plodder wrote: Quote: wtf is it? its a cow since we slaughter them too and its okay. (Im not against eating meat or killing cows for food.)

:roll:

Plodder wrote: Quote: it is potential. scientific proof = 0
scietists that claim this= 0
relative claim strength =0%

Does my claim hold no strength because you disagree with it? There is no scientific proof for the existence of God, yet many believe in him. Does that mean that religion has no strength? Regardless of what other scientists believe, it is what I believe, and if you do not like it, then prove it wrong.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

religion is about faith. we are dealing in science.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

Plodder wrote: religion is about faith. we are dealing in science.

What is science but faith in logic and reason?

Oh, and please respond to my other points, instead of selecting only one part to respond to. I think that if you don't respond to them, that you agree with them since you are no longer arguing.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

when you reapat things over and over again I will ignore you.

Quote: What is science but faith in logic and reason? science is the study of the physical world. This is why science cannot prove nor disprove God.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: science is the study of the physical world. This is why science cannot prove nor disprove God How does anyone know there is anything BUT the physical world? I was raised Roman Catholic but cmon, do you know how Christianity was spread? Certainly not in a way Jesus would approve. They demonized people as witches and burned them alive. Not a very nice way to die trust me. Look my point is there are a lot of religions out there, that believe a lot of different things. To me it seems obvious that religion is just a way to comfort and control peoples behavior. That's just my belief though and everyone is entitled to theirs. It just seems highly unlikely to me that people have some mystical thing called a soul. We have a brain with complex functions and that is a miracle no doubt. Existence is a miracle that is no doubt. Life is so mystical it seems there must be some sort of creator. Maybe just maybe though, it is impossible for existence not to exist. Maybe there is some scientific property that says its impossible to have nothing without something. Maybe there is no beginning and no end to existence, thus no creator as it was never created to begin with. We could be in a constant never ending cycle we have no comprehension of. All of this seems more plausible to me than my god is the one true god.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

Plodder wrote: when you reapat things over and over again I will ignore you.

And I repeat them only because you ignore them and ignore my claims that tear apart your arguments without refutations. So you see, we are caught in a dilemma here... If you continue to ignore my claims, then I will continue to claim them. Yet, if you provide reasons why my claims are wrong, then we are progressing the debate. Failure to do so means that I have won.

Aren't you the one who stated, "inaction is the same as supporting" (I apologize for not having the exact quote, but the message was along the same lines)? By not acting against my arguments, I am taken to believe that you support them...

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: , if you provide reasons why my claims are wrong, well i have and you persist, pulling a steen along the way. Quote: Aren't you the one who stated, "inaction is the same as supporting" (I apologize for not having the exact quote, but the message was along the same lines)? By not acting against my arguments, I am taken to believe that you support them... inaction is difrennt thatn ignoring. and I said something else. Quote: They demonized people as witches and burned them alive. those were mainly done by prysbytwrians and by lutherans. Quote: We have a brain with complex functions and that is a miracle no doubt. nhowver, i bet you cannot explain in anyscientific wa y how you can explain love. Quote: Maybe just maybe though, it is impossible for existence not to exist. Maybe there is some scientific property that says its impossible to have nothing without something. Maybe there is no beginning and no end to existence, thus no creator as it was never created to begin with. We could be in a constant never ending cycle we have no comprehension of. All of this seems more plausible to me than my god is the one true god. dont you think that that is a lot of maybes there. there is nno way to prove the never ennding cycle. scientists have been able to trace time upto the point of the big bang but not before it.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

Plodder wrote: Quote: , if you provide reasons why my claims are wrong, well i have and you persist, pulling a steen along the way.

... Which are...?

Plodder wrote: inaction is difrennt thatn ignoring. and I said something else.

How are they different? Inaction is acknowledging the problem and doing nothing, but ignoring is pretending the problem is not even there. I think that ignoring is worse than inaction because it is embracing denial and ignorance so that you do not have to be faced with the problem.

Plodder wrote: those were mainly done by prysbytwrians and by lutherans.

... Which are forms of Christianity.

Plodder wrote: nhowver, i bet you cannot explain in anyscientific wa y how you can explain love.

Actually, there are many scientific theories on love, but I'll stick to the issue of abortion.

Is love a part of human life?

Plodder wrote: dont you think that that is a lot of maybes there. there is nno way to prove the never ennding cycle. scientists have been able to trace time upto the point of the big bang but not before it.

Maybe God does exist, and maybe he is pro-life, and maybe the are absolute morals, and maybe an embryo is a human life...

Don't be a hypocrite.

... And String Theory has a hypothesis as to what happened before the Big Bang... But you don't believe in the Big Bang, do you? I mean, the Bible says that God created the universe after all...

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

[quote="Plodder"] inaction is difrennt thatn ignoring. and I said something else.[q/uote]Splitting hairs now, eh?

Quote: Quote: They demonized people as witches and burned them alive. those were mainly done by prysbytwrians and by lutherans. And the Spanish Inquisition? Any more excuses and denials?

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: ... Which are forms of Christianity.
they are heretics.

Quote: And the Spanish Inquisition? Any more excuses and denials? actrually yes, this just show how little of history you know. The Spanish Inquisition was conducted by the Monarchs of Spain without the approval of the Vatican. This inquisition was done to eliminate political rivals of the spanish crown and to get rid of muslims and Jews in the country. The Pope did not approve it at all but could not stop Ferdinand sine Spain Had a large army at the time.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

Plodder wrote: Quote: ... Which are forms of Christianity.
they are heretics.

So anyone that is not Catholic is a heretic?

Plodder wrote: actrually yes, this just show how little of history you know. The Spanish Inquisition was conducted by the Monarchs of Spain without the approval of the Vatican. This inquisition was done to eliminate political rivals of the spanish crown and to get rid of muslims and Jews in the country. The Pope did not approve it at all but could not stop Ferdinand sine Spain Had a large army at the time.

... And to show how little history you know...

"The Spanish Inquisition was a legally constituted court decreed by Sixtus IV's Papal Bull and implemented under Ferdinand and Isabella of Castile beginning in 1478."

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition)

Very first sentence of the page states that the Spanish Inquisition was a Papal decree, with direct approval from the Pope. He did nothing to attempt to stop it, because he was the one that authorized it. Also, Spain did not have a large army, because Spain itself was formed under a century before the Inquisition by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella. It was conducted as a way to attempt the Iberian through the elimination of anyone that did not follow the Catholic creed, much like the Nazi elimination of Jews during the 1940's. The Spanish Inquisition was a program that was directly authorized by the Pope, and carried out by the monks and priests of Spain (not the political armies, but servants of the Church). It was a completely religious ordeal, with little influence by the extremely weak Spanish armies, or the newly formed "Spain".