Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Umpqua mass shooting


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Umpqua mass shooting Page: <<   < prev  17 18 19 20 [21]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/7/2015 5:31:30 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.
Thats a great "pro-choice" argument, Lucy. And speaks to the difference between "unborn" and "born" but not to "human being" vs. "going to be human being but not til we say so".


lmao no, the big problem for you is you want women to be taken out of the equation, and you cannot.
but keep trying.



Another mind-reader...who couldn't be more wrong.

You keep trying , though. I've said this before. I am pro-choice. That doesn't stop me from knowing what's happening.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 401
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/7/2015 5:53:55 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

On second thought:
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
The good professor is an M.D.

Got a link to the good doctor?

I do.

Well then hook me up with this thirty year dead jeasus phreque pro-life pimp and tell me why his hogwash works when the overwhelming majority of his peers say he was full of shit?
No need...here's some others:

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
Micheline Mathews-Roth, MD, associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, M. D.
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes (The father of modern genetics, Dr. Jerome Lejeune)

"There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole."
Dr. Bernard Nathansan, M.D. (founder of one of the most influential abortion-advocacy groups in the country: NARAL)

Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis—that every species reproduces after its own kind—we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate concedes this simple fact.

Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States—Planned Parenthood—argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:

"I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus."


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 402
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/7/2015 6:20:00 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
FR

Gawd. Seriously, folks - who cares about the medics' view? We don't go to them for moral philosophy. It's not their province and they don't have the expertise for it. They're just scientists, that's all.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 403
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/7/2015 9:38:49 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Gawd. Seriously, folks - who cares about the medics' view? We don't go to them for moral philosophy. It's not their province and they don't have the expertise for it. They're just scientists, that's all.

Actually...the last point of view is from the longest-reigning President of Planned Parenthood, not an M.D..

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 404
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/7/2015 10:04:12 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.
Thats a great "pro-choice" argument, Lucy. And speaks to the difference between "unborn" and "born" but not to "human being" vs. "going to be human being but not til we say so".


lmao no, the big problem for you is you want women to be taken out of the equation, and you cannot.
but keep trying.



Another mind-reader...who couldn't be more wrong.

You keep trying , though. I've said this before. I am pro-choice. That doesn't stop me from knowing what's happening.



Lol
Yes you have said it but yanno how little credibility you have with me.
The reason is is you lie.


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 405
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/8/2015 5:20:39 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
Thompson---could you be any more annoyingly obtuse or informationally feckless??

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/

that link was provided for reading, ironically by someone who's position it actually contradicts. I quoted heavily from it. cd then admonished you to read it.

go there now and notice the amount of quotes that have the letters "M.D." next to them. and then I also notice cd providing more above.

at the same time, who the heck do you think authors text books on embryology?? high school drop outs? some of them are medical doctors.

but more importantly, medical doctors are not wholly experts in embryology. there are people with phds in the field who are as, if not more, scientifically qualified to talk on the subject. those are the other people writing the text books and authoring the aforementioned quotes.

and most importantly---does any of this actually matter to you?? like you are somehow looking for the truth here and then as a result of it being plainly demonstrated to you, you are going to become pro-life and defend babies in the womb? gee all along I thought it was just a blob of cells until all of a sudden, magically, in the instant before birth it turns into a human being.




< Message edited by bounty44 -- 10/8/2015 5:42:27 AM >

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 406
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/8/2015 5:50:41 AM   
adrift


Posts: 6
Joined: 7/25/2007
Status: offline
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/guns-congress-and-murphys-law-090049362.html

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 407
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/8/2015 7:01:53 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Gawd. Seriously, folks - who cares about the medics' view? We don't go to them for moral philosophy. It's not their province and they don't have the expertise for it. They're just scientists, that's all.

It should be obvious that a fetus is a living thing, and that it is human. But granting that, whether it is a human being is a separate matter, and obviously it isn't ̶  yet. In my opinion, the moral question here is how we define a "human being," and personally, I can think of some adults who don't qualify.

K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/8/2015 7:04:02 AM >

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 408
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/8/2015 7:09:49 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
"I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus."

Any idea when the religious opinions of a stastically irrelevant number of pro-lifers will approach mainstream thought?

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 409
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/8/2015 7:13:40 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Kirata

It should be obvious that a fetus is a living thing, and that it is human. But granting that, whether it is a human being is a separate matter, and obviously it isn't ̶  yet. In my opinion, the moral question here is how we define a "human being," and personally, I can think of some adults who don't qualify.

What,if anything, should be done whith them?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 410
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/8/2015 7:23:25 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: bounty44

Thompson---could you be any more annoyingly obtuse or informationally feckless??

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/

This is typical of the statements on the cite you posted.



National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/medlineplus/fertilization
The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.

Perhaps if you were to learn english it would help your understanding of that language.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 411
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/8/2015 7:54:01 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Any idea when the religious opinions of a stastically irrelevant number of pro-lifers will approach mainstream thought?

Any idea when you'll be returning to Earth?



What Americans view as immoral does not always track what they think should be illegal.

K.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 412
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/8/2015 8:32:42 AM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.
Thats a great "pro-choice" argument, Lucy. And speaks to the difference between "unborn" and "born" but not to "human being" vs. "going to be human being but not til we say so".


lmao no, the big problem for you is you want women to be taken out of the equation, and you cannot.
but keep trying.



Another mind-reader...who couldn't be more wrong.

You keep trying , though. I've said this before. I am pro-choice. That doesn't stop me from knowing what's happening.



Lol
Yes you have said it but yanno how little credibility you have with me.
The reason is is you lie.


If I do...that makes two of us.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 413
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/8/2015 8:37:12 AM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

"I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus."

Any idea when the religious opinions of a stastically irrelevant number of pro-lifers will approach mainstream thought?

Could you be any more thick? That quote that you used? It came from the longest-reigning President of Planned Parenthood. Hardly pro-life.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 414
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/9/2015 10:12:01 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

~ FR ~

Roseburg welcomes Obama:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=19&v=TFhcc0Wykvc

K.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 415
RE: Umpqua mass shooting - 10/10/2015 4:15:01 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Oh at last!!!!!!!!!!!

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 416
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 19 20 [21]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Umpqua mass shooting Page: <<   < prev  17 18 19 20 [21]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.156