Christianity requires fear, guilt, and conformity

[Wrangler]

It’s not slander to find a reasonable doubt in witness testimony.

It IS slander when the doubt is not reasonable. Said differently, your doubt does not mean those who testify they way you do not prefer are insane.

 

[Romanov2488]

It IS slander when the doubt is not reasonable. Said differently, your doubt does not mean those who testify they way you do not prefer are insane.

It’s not slander just because you don’t prefer a witness’ sanity to be called into question.

 

[FlySwatter]

Again, the science proves it has a unique human DNA from the moment of conception. Let's start there, at the beginning with claims of science.

You can create a new strand of DNA in a lab. Is a petri dish full of cells a person with full legal rights? This is one of the most interesting and most bizarre contradictions among those who claim to be “pro-life” for religious reasons. Religion is based on the presumption that the essence of our existence is non-physical; and yet religious anti-abortionists are perfectly willing to define personhood in terms of a cluster of biological elements. Go figure !

The baby - even in the stage of its development as being only a fertilized egg - remains human and no other species. All you can do is deny this basic scientific fact.

A fertilised egg is no more a baby than a grain of wheat is a loaf of bread. Your appeal to terminology is simply ludicrous.

A baby is a living human being capable of sustaining itself, breathing, feeling and having a brain.

Let's cut this utter nonsense.






I see this silly sleight of hand played time and time again by rabid anti-abortionists. It is utterly farcical.

We can further expose how ridiculous it is to appeal to terminology by considering what parts of a human being are required in order for us to honestly call it a human being.

So let's take an adult human being.

It is a human being

Now we cut off an arm - is it still a human being?

Now we cut off a leg - is it still a human being?

Now we surgically remove the brain or even chop off the entire head - is it still a human being?

Let's say we remove absolutely everything except the big toe - is that still a human being?

The anti-abortionists sadly have to tow the party line that yes, a big toe IS a human being because to state that it is not a human being (which is the truth) is to then concede that calling a fertilised egg a human being is equally stupid and false.

We might also consider the difference between a 30 day old corpse vs a living adult. Are they both human beings?

They certainly both are the same species, they both have human DNA but with the best will in the world a corpse is not a human being. It is just a collection of human cells, without a functioning brain.

And really it is the brain that gets us to the truth of all this, because without the brain the rest of the body does not function, there is no breath, no heart beat and so on.

An egg has no brain. It is not therefore a human being at this point by any reasonable usage of that term.

 

[FlySwatter]

It's totally relevant here. Murder is about killing humans. What life form is being killed in an abortion? A human life.

This is answered in the previous post

What life form is being killed in an abortion?

It would be an organism, one with no brain, no nervous system, no sentience, no feeling, but of species Homo Sapiens

Not a baby

Not a human being

 

[Romanov2488]

You can create a new strand of DNA in a lab. Is a petri dish full of cells a person with full legal rights? This is one of the most interesting and most bizarre contradictions among those who claim to be “pro-life” for religious reasons. Religion is based on the presumption that the essence of our existence is non-physical; and yet religious anti-abortionists are perfectly willing to define personhood in terms of a cluster of biological elements. Go figure !



A fertilised egg is no more a baby than a grain of wheat is a loaf of bread. Your appeal to terminology is simply ludicrous.

A baby is a living human being capable of sustaining itself, breathing, feeling and having a brain.

Let's cut this utter nonsense.

View attachment 31973

View attachment 31976


I see this silly sleight of hand played time and time again by rabid anti-abortionists. It is utterly farcical.

We can further expose how ridiculous it is to appeal to terminology by considering what parts of a human being are required in ordr for us to honestly call it a human being.

So let's take an adult human being.

It is a human being

Now we cut off an arm - is it still a human being?

Now we cut off a leg - is it still a human being?

Now we surgically remove the brain or even chop off the entire head - is it still a human being?

Let's say we remove absolutely everything except the big toe - is that still a human being?

The anti-abortionists sadly have to tow the party line that yes, a big toe IS a human being because to state that it is not a human being (which is the truth) is to then concede that calling a fertilised egg a human being is equally stupid and false.

We might also consider the difference between a 30 day old corpse vs a living adult. Are they both human beings?

They certainly both are the same species, they both have human DNA but with the best will in the world a corpse is not a human being. It is just a collection of human cells, without a functioning brain.

And really it is the brain that gets us to the truth of all this, because without the brain the rest of the body does not function, there is no breath, no heart beat and so on.

An egg has no brain. It is not therefore a human being at this point by any reasonable usage of that term.

The life of the fetus is what’s important. The life of the 10 year old rape victim however, is a sinner with a special place in hell waiting for her.

I just don’t get it. I asked for a pile of dough and it wasn’t the loaf of bread I was expecting.

 

[FlySwatter]

Subdividing the baby's development into other categories does not make abortion ending the life of another species.

It makes it ending the existence of an organism. Like removing a kidney or appendix.

Your only hope is to rely on some technical categorization AS IF such word play changes anything. Abortion still stops a human's beating heart.

There is no beating heart in a fertilised egg. There is no heart full stop. Did you never do biology at school?

There is no heart whatsoever for some weeks into a pregnancy. Equally there is no brain.

I will agree with you that once a functioning brain and heart and nervous system have developed then we have a human being, a baby to all intents and purposes and the termination of such then becomes a serious matter.

The problem with anti-abortionists is that they can't bring themselves to concede the simple fact that before there is a brain. heart and nervous system, we don't yet have a human being/baby. For some bizarre reason these people have to be "all in" to support their cult like ideology.

 

[FlySwatter]

Disagree. Exceptions don't make rules. Well over 95% of abortions are for convenience sake.

Actually there are many different reasons for abortions

But we can dispense with all this silliness and pull back the curtain hiding the Wizard Of Oz by asking a simple question . . .

It is ok, acceptable for people to have sex with each other purely for pleasure, with no intention of wishing to procreate?

Give us your answer

 

[FlySwatter]

I am really starting to see that those who claim to be pro-life really aren't because the life of the mother is hardly on their radar

Ironically the life of the child isn't on the radar either. If a mother needs an abortion because she simply can not possibly afford to look after that child, feed it, clothe it, educate it etc the so-called pro-lifers don't give a rats backside. They're not queuing up to adopt the child or volunteering to pay for its food, clothes and education. Their involvement with the child stops at the sanctimonious assumption that they have any rights at all over someone else's life. The argument itself is all they care about, not the consequences of their arguments.

 

[FlySwatter]

Half the babies aborted are female. Murdering them is okey-dokey?

They are not babies. Your continued use of this term is disingenuous. They are organisms.

If you want to refer to babies then at least have the decency to state how many weeks after conception you are talking about.
Murder is a law term. It refers only to human beings, not to eggs or forming organisms.

 

[Wrangler]

You can create a new strand of DNA in a lab. Is a petri dish full of cells a person with full legal rights?

Being lost, you have things backwards. It's not acid that has full legal rights but a human being, who has a unique DNA code. Keep things straight and you won't get lost again. :)

 

[FlySwatter]

Being lost, you have things backwards. It's not acid that has full legal rights but a human being, who has a unique DNA code. Keep things straight and you won't get lost again. :)

Ignoring the point put to you just destroys your credibility

Once again YOU CAN create a NEW, UNIQUE strand of DNA in a petri dish. Is a petri dish full of such cells a person with full legal rights?

 

[FlySwatter]

Also @Wrangler I'm interested to know if you consider a sperm a living being?

If not what is it?

 

[Wrangler]

A fertilised egg is no more a baby than a grain of wheat is a loaf of bread.

You are walking right into the analogy to defeat you. People say a bun is in the often precisely because a fertilized egg is a baby.

 

[Wrangler]

Also @Wrangler I'm interested to know if you consider a sperm a living being?

If not what is it?

Great question! A sperm is a part of a living being. We know this because it combined with it's mating female equivalent, which does produce a living being.

A sperm is a part of a living being, like skin is. Sure, callouses are dead skin but there is also living skin. Your argument is so poor, you are now reaching to equate WHOLE being with PARTof a being, a WHOLE life form with PART of a life form.

 

[Wrangler]

What life form is being killed in an abortion?

The baby is killed in an abortion. Everyone but a Leftist knows this.

 

[Wrangler]

Actually there are many different reasons for abortions

True. However, only one reason comes close to justifying abortion that that reason is a very, very small percentage of abortions.

 

[Wrangler]

It is ok, acceptable for people to have sex with each other purely for pleasure, with no intention of wishing to procreate?

Give us your answer

Sure! Like all choices, we are free to choose but not free from the consequences of that choice. If we make the choice, we are choosing the consequences.

 

[Wrangler]

Ignoring the point put to you just destroys your credibility

Once again YOU CAN create a NEW, UNIQUE strand of DNA in a petri dish. Is a petri dish full of such cells a person with full legal rights?

What part of my answer below do you not understand?

Being lost, you have things backwards. It's not acid that has full legal rights but a human being, who has a unique DNA code. Keep things straight and you won't get lost again. :)

Your argument is so poor, you are comparing a living being as equal to an acid. Acids are not life forms.

You are forgetting the breath of life that separates the living from the dead. We are not our constituent parts. Your argument is getting more and more desperate.

 

[Wrangler]

Oh, I forgot to mention WHY Freedom of Religion was put as the list Amendment. In the colonial days, various colonies DID establish one religion over another. In EVERY single case, the established religion in the American colonies was Christian, 100%.

The fear the Founding Father's had was that one Christian denomination would seek to become the State supported religion of the super-State compact. There was no concern that non-Christian religions posed such a threat.

If there was one exception to colonies establishing one religion over another that was NOT Christian, it would be used by anti-Christian propagandists would use it to support their false claim denying that America is a Christian nation.

Just because our Christian nation decided to form a non-theocratic government, does not mean it is not a Christian culture, a Christian people and a Christian nation.

Interesting headline today. Arizona Dem Legislator Apologizes for Hiding State House Bibles

Inquiring minds want to know if the US is not a Christian nation, what is a non-Christian State House doing with State House Bibles?

 

[Wrangler]

False. The founding fathers here would laugh at your folly:

View attachment 31964

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (FROM TO THE OFFICERS OF THE FIRST BRIGADE OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE MILITIA OF MASSACHUSETTS, 11 October, 1798) John Adams