When Does Life Begin ...

[Stoney McFried]

Humans that don't kill their young aren't any better than animals either.We're just another life form on this planet,one that happens to have a superiority complex.

Going by your logic Humans that kill their young are no better than animals, With this I would agree.

Conditioning...yeah...that's exactly what religion is.You're not gonna stop it, it was happening before Roe vs. Wade....only more mothers were dying...but I suppose you think that's fit punishment,since the religious always try to interpret the mind and word of god to suit themselves.

^^^ ^^^​

Isn't it amazing how the human mind can accept anything providing the proper "conditioning" is applied? Since Roe vs Wade, 40 million unborn have been sacrificed to the god of convenience ... and we call them "tapeworms." What a sad commentary on our Orwellian society.

Vi

 

[Bongulator]

I would think that a mere sperm has at least many of the attributes of life, so perhaps life begins in my nutsack. I mean, how many NON-living things are mobile under their own power, have a goal, and compete with each other to see which reaches the goal first? Not to mention, they have human DNA, both X and Y chromosomes even. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that. Now they're gonna say the soul begins in the sperm, and that it is the souls God loves most that reach an egg. Or something. And then they're gonna want to regulate my nuts. Tight jeans? Briefs? Off to prison with you, murderer! Of course, people believing that would make it easier to convince women to swallow -- aw baby, that's my soul juice, God *wants* you to have it inside you!

Here's an interesting scenario. It's not technologically possible now, but it will be eventually. A woman donates an egg to two gay male friends. They replace the DNA in the egg with the DNA from the sperm from one of the gay guys, inseminate the modified egg with the other guy's sperm, then implant it into the woman to carry to term. In this way, two gay males can have a child together, sharing their genes like any fertile hetero couple. Let's say by that time abortion has been re-criminalized. If she has that fetus killed, is that abortion, or is it expelling a trespasser? After all, the sperm, the egg, the inseminator sperm, none of it contains the DNA of the woman. She would be completely unrelated to the child if the child were born. If she married the child and had children with it, there would be no weird genetic problems from inbreeding. So, it would be a stranger living in her body, basically, leeching off her nutrients, causing her health problems. If she decides she doesn't want this stranger in her body anymore, then what?

 

[CannaPanda]

I think that the 'spirit'(best fitting english word for the details of what makes us individual) enters the body(fetus??) within the last month to 2 weeks of being in the mother .
such as the color and full flavor of a tomato,pepper (w/e kinda food or plant, giving what kinda forum were on, the potency of trichome growth) enter during the last days of being on the stalk. of course. i could be talking stupid because i just compared human to plant. ne1 have better ideas?or maybe i shoulda read the Whole thread instead of first and last page ... expect editing

 

[celorfiwyn]

CERN tomorrow, we shall see

 

[ccodiane]

I would think that a mere sperm has at least many of the attributes of life, so perhaps life begins in my nutsack. I mean, how many NON-living things are mobile under their own power, have a goal, and compete with each other to see which reaches the goal first? Not to mention, they have human DNA, both X and Y chromosomes even. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that. Now they're gonna say the soul begins in the sperm, and that it is the souls God loves most that reach an egg. Or something. And then they're gonna want to regulate my nuts. Tight jeans? Briefs? Off to prison with you, murderer!

Here's an interesting scenario. It's not technologically possible now, but it will be eventually. A woman donates an egg to two gay male friends. They replace the DNA in the egg with the DNA from the sperm from one of the gay guys, inseminate the modified egg with the other guy's sperm, then implant it into the woman to carry to term. In this way, two gay males can have a child together, sharing their genes like any fertile hetero couple. Let's say by that time abortion has been re-criminalized. If she has that fetus killed, is that abortion, or is it expelling a trespasser? After all, the sperm, the egg, the inseminator sperm, none of it contains the DNA of the woman. She would be completely unrelated to the child if the child were born. If she married the child and had children with it, there would be no weird genetic problems from inbreeding. So, it would be a stranger living in her body, basically, leeching off her nutrients, causing her health problems. If she decides she doesn't want this stranger in her body anymore, then what?

Maybe when one begins to think cogently, "life" begins. Until then, you're just a walking, talking, jack-off.....

(My weiner just moved, bless it's little heart!)

("regulate my nuts".....that is funny)

 

[AlphaNoN]

Life begins when a child is able to live independently of it's mother. If technology can provide a way for a fetus to live outside of a womb, then abortions will become obsolete. But children will still suffer as they do now, unwanted and left to anguish in the quagmire that is our foster care system.

I've never understood the conservative position on abortion, it defies understanding, as the reasons they offer up are hypocritical at best and sadistic at worst. It seems to me that the issue is more about control than saving the lives of children.

 

[ccodiane]

Life begins when a child is able to live independently of it's mother. If technology can provide a way for a fetus to live outside of a womb, then abortions will become obsolete. But children will still suffer as they do now, unwanted and left to anguish in the quagmire that is our foster care system.

I've never understood the conservative position on abortion, it defies understanding, as the reasons they offer up are hypocritical at best and sadistic at worst. It seems to me that the issue is more about control than saving the lives of children.

Conservatives on abortion.....too each their own. This includes states.

PS-If you want a picture of abortion, imagine a boot stamping on a human face... forever.

 

[ccodiane]

If there was a conception tax, the debate would be over. "If cells have divided, your ass is taxed. Hey, we didn't make you fuck, did we? So pay up you greedy carrier of child."

 

[Bongulator]

Of course it's about control. It's a wedge issue that the Republicans use to fire up smalltown country hicks and convince them to vote Republican on the basis of this one issue, while at the same time taking money from the poor suckers and giving it to the rich and the big corporations. It works too. It definitely helped Bush get elected twice. It's a Machiavellian tactic, but you can't argue with its effectiveness. Uneducated religious country bumpkins are the base of the Republican Party. Uneducated poor urban people, of whatever color or persuasion or sex or sexual preference, are the base of the Democratic Party.

They'll never criminalize abortion though, however much they dislike the idea, because without that wedge issue they'd lose every race. I mean, look at the Republican Party. They're almost all white. Few hispanics, and a whopping 2 percent of their delegates were black. 2 percent! They're the party of the white male (and their white wives, of course), and that's about it. But the demographics of America are changing, and whites won't be an absolute majority for much longer. There will eventually be a demographic threshold reached that will preclude the Republican Party from winning much of anything, unless they become more open to people who aren't white. If they don't get with the times, they'll fade into history like the Tories and all the other parties in our history that exist no more.

A party that doesn't change to reflect the demographics of the times is ultimately doomed.

 

[ccodiane]

Of course it's about control. It's a wedge issue that the Republicans use to fire up smalltown country hicks and convince them to vote Republican on the basis of this one issue, while at the same time taking money from the poor suckers and giving it to the rich and the big corporations. It works too. It definitely helped Bush get elected twice. It's a Machiavellian tactic, but you can't argue with its effectiveness.

They'll never criminalize abortion though, however much they dislike the idea, because without that wedge issue they'd lose every race. I mean, look at the Republican Party. They're almost all white. Few hispanics, and a whopping 2 percent of their delegates were black. 2 percent! They're the party of the white male (and their white wives, of course), and that's about it. But the demographics of America are changing, and whites won't be an absolute majority for much longer. There will eventually be a demographic threshold reached that will preclude the Republican Party from winning much of anything, unless they become more open to people who aren't white. If they don't get with the times, they'll fade into history like the Tories and all the other parties in our history that exist no more.

A party that doesn't change to reflect the demographics of the times is ultimately doomed.

Wrong. It's a wedge issue and many Americans demand their voices be heard on it. Only one party is remotely interested in listening.

 

[Bongulator]

Yeah, only one party is willing to inject religion into government. That's certainly true. The people who *want* religion in government (and in schools, and in courthouses, and in peoples' bodies) always vote Republican. As long as it's the correct religion, obviously.

 

[medicineman]

There will eventually be a demographic threshold reached that will preclude the Republican Party from winning much of anything, unless they become more open to people who aren't white. If they don't get with the times, they'll fade into history like the Tories and all the other parties in our history that exist no more.

A party that doesn't change to reflect the demographics of the times is ultimately doomed.

I can hardly wait. They are the party of jerk-offs so they never have to worry about abortion. That only happens to liberals that happen to like to fuck. White rich dickheads that have been riding the gravy train way too long. I'll be dancing in the street the day those assholes are gone. signed Med.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Democrats ignore a lot of people, actually Democrats ignore everyone that isn't a government employee or is sucking on the government tit. They also attack any one not doing either of those two things.

Though Philosophically speaking there are a lot of divisions in the Democrat party, and most of them only agree that the government should give them money, or their ability to screw up the lives of others should be protected (I'm talking about the Unions).

It's also ironic that the CEOs of Big Business, Buffett, Bloomberg, are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. One would think that if Republicans are Pro-Business the biggest businesses would be behind them. Yes, Republicans are Pro-Business, but not to the exclusive beneift of big business, we just don't hate big business.

 

[ccodiane]

Yeah, only one party is willing to inject religion into government. That's certainly true. The people who *want* religion in government (and in schools, and in courthouses, and in peoples' bodies) always vote Republican. As long as it's the correct religion, obviously.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776​

​

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America​

​

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. yada yada.... God... yada yada.....

 

[Stoney McFried]

You know, if I hadn't repped you recently, I think I'd have repped you for just about every post.

Yeah, only one party is willing to inject religion into government. That's certainly true. The people who *want* religion in government (and in schools, and in courthouses, and in peoples' bodies) always vote Republican. As long as it's the correct religion, obviously.

They were speaking figuratively.Notice, they didn't say MY god, or the Christian god.....and then...they wrote the first amendment!First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776​

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America​

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. yada yada.... God... yada yada.....

 

[ccodiane]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

Excerpt- 1st amendment

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

[Stoney McFried]

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

Excerpt- 1st amendment

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

[Stoney McFried]

Free exercise is fine...trying to use your religion to run a country is not.

 

[ccodiane]

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.

It also prohibits favoring non-religion over religion, right? It promotes the idea that whatever your religious beliefs, even if none, you shall not be excluded from public discourse. With you libs, it's always a one way street.

 

[ccodiane]

Free exercise is fine...trying to use your religion to run a country is not.

If one uses religion to make decisions, national or otherwise, that is their prerogative. They have to get elected first, remember?