Paul focusing more on Abortion this time?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[jmdrake]

That would be a fertilized chicken egg, no, not a chicken, but an egg, and in the very late stages at that. You can buy fertilized chicken eggs in the early stage and you can't even really tell the difference between that and a regular egg.

At that stage it's no longer considered just a "fertilized chicken egg" but a chicken embryo. Look at it another way. If you went to McDonald's and ordered scrambled eggs, so almost no egg white and no egg yoke, and instead saw a beak and some eyes looking up at you, you'd probably ask for your money back. On the other hand if it was just a "fertilized egg", as you say, you wouldn't know the difference.

 

[JCLibertarian]

 

[cheapseats]

Right. Try to build your and concentrate on the roof why our foundation is built on quick sand. Maybe you are in the wrong movement. If you want to support a pro choice candidate the choose one.

How QUIXOTIC of me, to imagine that PRO-CHOICE is a "libertarian leaning" concept.

 

[dannno]

The reason that it is wrong to murder another human being and not an animal is that human beings have been imprinted with the image of God. Animals have not (although Scripture does deal with laws against animal abuse).

Now if you don't accept the premise that man carries the image of God, then I can see how you could make human life be as important as animal life. In an atheist worldview, there is no real reason that humans should have any more right to live than cows.

What about atheists who are on team: people?

i.e. Joe Rogan, Adam Carolla

 

[cheapseats]

Where does God stand on WAR, and what are Abortion Hysterics doing about THAT?

 

[Sola_Fide]

What about atheists who are on team: people?

Yes, everyone. The mere fact that you reason and use logic and love and communicate is evidence that you bear God's image.

 

[Krugerrand]

It would be an opinion I suppose.

I call the whole thing an egg. When the chick is fully developed and ready to hatch, then it becomes a chick about to hatch out of it's egg, but not until it's ready to come out, imo.

I call a fetus a person when they are fully developed and capable of surviving outside the womb on their own.

I call them a partial person when they become self aware, and don't like to see abortions during either of these times but am not totally sure I'd like to see women locked up for it.

I think women are more responsible for abortions than the doctors who carry them out when it is the woman's choice to have the abortion.

Chicken - chick - chick about to hatch - not fully developed chick in an egg
Senile, no longer self aware, old Adult - Adult - teenager - child - toddler - baby - unborn child - fetus - embryo - zygote

If you trace the biological life of any organism back to its roots ... no matter what stage it is in, it is the same organism. There is a point when the organism did not exist and a point at which it begins to exist. (of course, there are some extraordinary exceptions, such as a star fish that can be split in two and continue as two separate organisms.

Some will make an argument for being allowed to destroy a human organism in its early stages. But I think it's pretty obvious, biologically, when a new human organism begins.

 

[dannno]

At that stage it's no longer considered just a "fertilized chicken egg" but a chicken embryo. Look at it another way. If you went to McDonald's and ordered scrambled eggs, so almost no egg white and no egg yoke, and instead saw a beak and some eyes looking up at you, you'd probably ask for your money back. On the other hand if it was just a "fertilized egg", as you say, you wouldn't know the difference.

Isn't a fertilized egg also a chicken embryo, just really really small?

If I went to McDonalds and ordered an egg anything it better be the apocalypse or something, otherwise I fucked up somewhere.. but if that did happen I would ask for either an unfertilized egg or a fertilized egg that was in an earlier stage of embryonic development if I wanted to be specific.

 

[cheapseats]

The flip side of the "reproductive rights" coin is the registration and licensing of penises, and collection of DNA - so we can match up unwanted pregnancies with feckless Daddy's. Otherwise, FORCIBLE carrying of pregnancies to term is a thinly veiled BABY MARKET, notably for the cultivation of canon fodder and the provision of babies to Rich People, Skinny Actresses, Gay Couples and alleged Holy Rollers who refuse to take NO for an answer.

Where would CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES be, without a buncha babies in harm's way?

We can snag Young 'Uns DNA when they register for Selective Service. We can snag Old Fart DNA with their first Viagra prescription.

DO YOU HAVE A CONDOM, pishaw. ARE YOU LICENSED AND BONDED?

Oh good - you found somebody to support that dribble ... oh, wait .. that was your own post. Never mind.

And YOU found a way to disregard responsibilities of and repercussions for the SPERM DONOR half of an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Krugerrand]

...
IM(humble)O Christians should be seeking to get the gun out of the room and eliminate market distortion. Would it not be better to purchase all of the unwanted babies in the world than use violence against a person who wants an abortion?

Was it not Ron Paul that said there were other ways to end slavery than Civil War? Why has his heart hardened on abortion?

I think the "best use of efforts" is a legitimate line of discussion. I support the idea that mothers should be able to financially profit from placing a child up for adoption. So many other people make money off the transaction.

EDIT:
I meant to also mention that the financial and political protections afforded to the Abortion Industry should be a top priority item as well. There is HUGE consensus that tax dollars should not go to abortions.

 

[Krugerrand]

What about atheists who are on team: people?

i.e. Joe Rogan, Adam Carolla

Does this post count:

For me, this has nothing to do w/ believers/non believers of anything. It has nothing to do with a "Christian message of life."

I support laws against the murder of toddlers, too. Is that supposed to be exclusive only to Christians?

Check out:
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

 

[dannno]

Yes, everyone. The mere fact that you reason and use logic and love and communicate is evidence that you bear God's image.

No, I mean if there was a society where most everybody was atheist and on team: people, meaning, they thought that human life was to an extent more important than animal life. Therefore animals are ok to own as property and to eat. I mean, animal life is important too, without it I don't think we could survive, so in reality both are important. The question I guess is individual animal life and individual human life. What is a human, etc.. Those are all opinions. You might want California to be pro-life, you might send your money or use your time and energy to help educate Californians about the importance of being pro-life, but that's about as far as it should go.

 

[dannno]

Does this post count:

No because Joe Rogan and Adam Carolla are pro-choice. They don't consider early term fetuses to be people. They are on team: people in that they think it is ok for people to eat animals.

AB2010 was saying that you have to believe in God in order to be on team: people and that fetuses are imprinted with God. I said there are plenty of people on team: people who don't believe that fetuses are imprinted with God.

 

[erowe1]

How QUIXOTIC of me, to imagine that PRO-CHOICE is a "libertarian leaning" concept.

I don't think you know what quixotic means.

 

[Krugerrand]

I don't think you know what quixotic means.

with video:

 

[cheapseats]

How QUIXOTIC of me, to imagine that PRO-CHOICE is a "libertarian leaning" concept.

I don't think you know what quixotic means.

quixotic: (adj.) exceedingly idealistic; unrealistic and impractical

It IS exceedingly idealistic, it is APPARENTLY unrealistic and impractical, to imagine that CHOICE is a "libertarian leaning" concept.

I don't think control-freakish and highly hypocritical Christians understand what FREE WILL means.

 

[JCLibertarian]

 

[jmdrake]

yayaya, this whole part of the conversation is a BS distraction. I am not even paying it any attention.

I think your entire participation in this thread has been a BS distraction so I guess we're even.

I never feel pounced on. Don't let my (depending on your perspective) excellent or poor use of language sucker punch you into an apology that is not warranted.

LOL. Ok, I nullify my apology.

The false choice is yours. Killing a toddler is not a matter of controversy among believers and non-believers.

You missed my discussion with another pro-choice advocate earlier in this thread that was saying there should be no laws against parents killing toddlers because children were property of their parents.

Be careful what you ask for because there is hypocrisy in some Christianity that is preached.

According to the logic you present here it is wrong to mutilate a penis and if you mutilate a penis I should be able to protect the child and use violence against you.

So now you're equating circumcision with murder? Because most people think it's ok to cut off a piece of skin parents should be able to kill toddlers? The fact is that the larger society does not see it as "mutilation". I'm not going to debate that one way or another because that wouldn't just be a red herring, it would be an entire fish market. So here's a more reasonable argument. Should a parent be able to poke his children's eyes out in order to keep them from "sinning" later? (If they eye offend they, pluck it out). Most people would say no.

However we know that mutilating a penis is an act of witnessing a covenant. Heck, God was going to kill Moses when Moses was on his way to deliver out of Egypt. We also know that circumcision is not really about the penis it is symbolic of the heart. But look at how many people got outraged in the penis mutilation thread feeling their version of Christianity was threatened.

Most people today don't circumcise because of religion. They circumcise because the medical community claims it's more healthy. It's kind of like you're told to get your vaccinations. I think most Christians would object to the argument put out by some that male circumcision is this "horrible evil". But I don't know of a single major Christian sect where circumcision is a requirement. Also I think the male circumcision argument cheapens the female circumcision argument as FGM is more akin to cutting the penis off instead of cutting off a piece of skin. But again, this is just a fish store.

I would say if you want to get voluntarily get circumcised to personally express your faith to witness a covenant that is your choice but would argue that you have no right to use violence imposing your choice on another person. Obviously I already know my view is not a mainstream view among "Christians"

Should parents not be allowed to pierce their baby daughters ears? After all, a piercing is "violent" if you are going to go with such a loose definition of the word.

I am not distorting jack crap. You are the one who is unwilling to address the gun in the room and I make you uncomfortable bringing it up.

I'm not uncomfortable at all and your whole argument has been nothing but one distortion after the other. You are the one who won't address the real issue. If you accept that a fetus is a child, and that parents should have the "right" to kill that child because we "don't want the government interfering" then people ought to be able to kill their toddlers too. If you're arguing that the fetus is not a child....well that's a different argument.

If Christian values are going to prevail it will not be at the end of a gun. It will be because Christians start praying and walking in their faith. It will be because Christians look at where they agree and disagree with non-believers and they will stop using violence to convince non-believers.

This isn't about "Christian values". It's not about re-criminalizing sodomy or any other purely moral issue. It's about whether or not a fetus is a child and if it is does it deserve protection. It's no different from the toddler in that respect.

If you want the proof of what I say look no further than the American revolution. Look no further than the own blow back the church created trying to impose it's values using violence.

And abortion was legalized after the American revolution? Besides, religion was a cause of people coming to America, but it was not a cause of the American Revolution itself. They weren't dumping Bibles into the Boston Harbor.

Christians have not learned how to love and it is only thru love not violence that life can be truly protected. Government sanctioned violence can not solve this because government is incapable of loving.

And again, the gun in the room that you seek to ignore is the question of murder in general. You refuse to address this, but the position you are stating is that murder in general should be legal, since the government shouldn't "protect life". You are really debating minarchism versus anarchism. Also you are ignoring the fact that Ron Paul's position is to reduce the power of the federal government in this issue. That is consistent with Ron Paul's position overall. He'd rather the states make decisions, even on issues where he's concerned the states might make the wrong decision. (Such as Ron Paul's criticism of the federal government striking down sodomy laws, even though he personally thought such laws were ridiculous).

 

[jmdrake]

Isn't a fertilized egg also a chicken embryo, just really really small?

I believe the correct term is "chicken zygote".

If I went to McDonalds and ordered an egg anything it better be the apocalypse or something, otherwise I fucked up somewhere..

LOL! Thank you for bringing some humor back in this thread.