Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 10th, 2008, 04:33 PM   #281
Haggar
Covered in mud...
 
Haggar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Oxford, MI
Posts: 17,551
iTrader: (54)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
Holes in my argument? Please respond by showing me the holes. But to make sure I understand you, list them numerically so I can see your different flaws you noticed. I will not gloss over them, I will look into them. So go ahead, get to listing them.

Your vision is just so narrow, like you don't want to admit that there are these 1% cases out there.


Thats why we try to walk you from scenario A to senario B, to show the hypocracy in your argument. But when someone asks you about scenario B, you always word your answer to modifiy the question in an attempt to make it seem separate and irrelevent to scenario A.


So, again, we look at these 0.0001% cases.

What if your family was in a violent car crash. A piece of steel penetrated your 1month old's skull. Somehow, the baby is still alive, despite that and a host of other injuries (broken bones, wounds, etc). The baby is showing no signs of brain activity, and is suffereing fevers as infection sets in.

Do you put this child 'in god's hands' and let it suffer until 'god' feels like ending the suffering, maybe in a day, or a week, or a month? Or do you mercifuly end the suffering of your own flesh and blood?

Yes or no?

There are scenarios just a bad for a fetus at 24 weeks. Again, when the baby has no chance of living for more than a few days or weeks of pain (recently was a case where the family in texas, I think, artificially kept their baby alive for several months, which according to doctors was constant pain).

Its about responsibility.

Now, I'm sure you will justify it as you love Jesus more than your wife, so of the two, you'd rather let your wife die than piss off Jesus.


Of course, if Jesus really wants you to sacrifice your wife for his sake, he's a dick.

And by Jesus, I mine Jesus, not 'H a g g a r'.

I'm a dick, but for other reasons..
Haggar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008, 08:01 PM   #282
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
In most cases, the child dies before the knowledge of the problem. But a situation similar to what you described can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spina_bifida

It is presumptuous to say that the child is in pain. You wanna show me some facts on that?
Hi! I'm back.
I don't have any answers regarding the slavery abortion comparison but I do have some comments, and thoughts about Pro Life and Pro choice points of view.

1st I'am Pro Life, right or wrong thats my position, and as such I would like to make it clear that I believe life starts at conception. I also believe that I would not make the decission to terminate a pregnancy under any circumstances. I oppose any assited termination of life, with out limits or conditions.
My understanding on Pro Choice is. It is legal with conditions. People make the decission for various reasons ( most of which I have NOT been exposed to). And the issue of when life begins is not as defined by Pro Choice as Pro Life, What I mean by that is Pro Life is pretty cut and dry with the conception belief, while there are differing opinions when it comes to Pro Choice on an individual by individual basis.
If i did not express the Pro Choice accurately please correct me. As to the Pro Life that is my position and my belief. I understand Kerwins position and the emotional volcano that comes from this position. I however haven't lived the Pro Choice senario's and imagine it has it's volcano's also.
The last thing, Kareless is way younger than I was thinking she was so I know she wasn't Disco dancing but that doesn't change the fact that her husband is old lol. Forget the Miami Vice thing on friday your to young your more like the Ally Mcbeal age.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008, 08:11 PM   #283
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,683
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post
Your vision is just so narrow, like you don't want to admit that there are these 1% cases out there.


Thats why we try to walk you from scenario A to senario B, to show the hypocracy in your argument. But when someone asks you about scenario B, you always word your answer to modifiy the question in an attempt to make it seem separate and irrelevent to scenario A.


So, again, we look at these 0.0001% cases.

What if your family was in a violent car crash. A piece of steel penetrated your 1month old's skull. Somehow, the baby is still alive, despite that and a host of other injuries (broken bones, wounds, etc). The baby is showing no signs of brain activity, and is suffereing fevers as infection sets in.

Do you put this child 'in god's hands' and let it suffer until 'god' feels like ending the suffering, maybe in a day, or a week, or a month? Or do you mercifuly end the suffering of your own flesh and blood?

Yes or no?

There are scenarios just a bad for a fetus at 24 weeks. Again, when the baby has no chance of living for more than a few days or weeks of pain (recently was a case where the family in texas, I think, artificially kept their baby alive for several months, which according to doctors was constant pain).

Its about responsibility.

Now, I'm sure you will justify it as you love Jesus more than your wife, so of the two, you'd rather let your wife die than piss off Jesus.


Of course, if Jesus really wants you to sacrifice your wife for his sake, he's a dick.

And by Jesus, I mine Jesus, not 'H a g g a r'.

I'm a dick, but for other reasons..
Ok, let me see if I am understanding you. Of the entire argument, the holes, or hole, you spotted is that I am a hypocrite? Wait a minute, that does not void the argument, it discounts me as the one who agrees with it.

I thought you were going to have five points, all neatly written out.

But.. let me answer the one issue you DID bring up. Honestly, I am not sure what I would do in that scenario. Personally I do believe (warning, temporary bible talk coming) that God is able to do a miracle. I would fast and pray and trust God for what he sees fit. And if a tough decision had to be made to pull the plug, then I would (shoving religion down your throat is now over).

Do you have a link to that story of the family with the child in pain? Do you have a link to anything else showing that a defect such as spinal bifida being painful to the child?

So you are saying that hag-gar is a dick? Man, I never thought you and I would agree in this thread!

I agree that we, as the ones responsible for our children, have to be mindful of their condition of life. But I have heard to many stories where the parents love the child, and I don't want to miss out on the possibility of that either. A show comes to mind where the baby girl was pretty much born without a face. She is only 5 years old now, but has had probably 7 reconstructive surgeries. The parents love her dearly, she simply had a genetic problem early on which left her severly disfigured. WHO AM I to kill that child? I don't think that little girl has a terrible life, she plays, she loves her Mommy and Daddy, and she is well cared for.

I know you like to use the MOST extreme example out there, which is fine, but like I said before, if abortion became illegal, even if it were just in some circumstances, I would celebrate. Perhaps legislation against health risks, rape, and other such situations will never be a part of that, which would be fine by me, because it means that at least many will be saved.
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008, 08:20 PM   #284
jeepnxj96
Senior Member
 
jeepnxj96's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-16-07
Location: Allegan,Mi
Posts: 2,970
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

about the rape scenario think of it this way, it wasn't the childs fault(yeah child,that is he/she is) why should they die for someone elses wrong doing?
jeepnxj96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008, 08:47 PM   #285
DUNTRUCKIN
LOVING LIFE
 
DUNTRUCKIN's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-15-07
Location: Harrison, MI
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

The last thing, Kareless is way younger than I was thinking she was so I know she wasn't Disco dancing but that doesn't change the fact that her husband is old lol. Forget the Miami Vice thing on friday your to young your more like the Ally Mcbeal age.[/QUOTE]

Just to let you know I'm younger than Kareless... but thanks for the compliment about her..
DUNTRUCKIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008, 09:50 PM   #286
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,683
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepnxj96 View Post
about the rape scenario think of it this way, it wasn't the childs fault(yeah child,that is he/she is) why should they die for someone elses wrong doing?
That is what I am saying. If three people are involved at that point, and if someone needs to see blood, then let them see the blood of the rapist. If someone HAS to die, it should be the one who is guilty of wrongdoing, not the innocent.
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008, 10:32 PM   #287
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,377
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
Bruce, first, very fair answers, let me comment and question on some of it.

What if a nine year old boy WANTS the ability to CHOOSE to undress behind a curtain and dance around nakes for adult gay men to view? Would that not be removing that young boy's ability to choose? The point is that choice is not always the right thing to do, because a minor needs to be protected from someone who may harm him. The same principle applies to children in the womb, someone needs to protect them. As this point it is not our laws, it is not our government, and it is not our people. To me this is wrong, and it is a tragedy.

Establishing when life begins IS very difficult, but surely there is life in the womb, and that CANNOT be ignored. But it is easy for someone to say "I don't know" or "we can't legislate on that." The higher calling is to get down to the bottom of it and start protecting life, even if it is only limited protection, we need progress!
Yes, young boys need to be protected even if that means denying them the right to make a choice that would put them in harms way.

But to then apply that same argument to a "child" or a "life" in the womb assumes that what is in the womb is a child or a life, and not just a lump of cells that the mother happens to have in her body that she can decide what to do with. This take us right back to the "when does life begin" debate.

If it were up to me I would err on the side of caution and try to protect all life, but it is not up to me. I believe that laws should reflect the values and morals of society, and when a consensus can not be reached it should be left up to the individual to decide. So by all means continue to try to sway people to your way of thinking. But one thing I never want to see in this country is a law imposing the morals or beliefs of a minority on the majority.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008, 10:51 PM   #288
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,683
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

But you are denying the choice of someone. Wasn't that the quailification you gave to say that we can step in to make change? My point is that the same should be done on the behalf of the unborn.

There is life in the womb, it is observable and factual. Unless someone can prove otherwise, there is life in the womb. For the record, lets not call a child a lump of cells, clearly ANY medical professional or member of the scientific community would correct you.

I would also err on the side of caution, but it IS up to you Bruce, you are a voter. Unfortunately, and consensus HAS been reached, but not the one that I would hope for. The consensus is that it is ok to kill unborn babies. The same way a consesus USED to be that it was ok to own a human being like you would own an ox. But we learned from that mistake, and we should learn from this one too. If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong.
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2008, 11:11 PM   #289
cornfed
I have an avatar. Yippee.
 
cornfed's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Happy Funtown U.S.A.
Posts: 4,105
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
There is life in the womb, it is observable and factual. Unless someone can prove otherwise, there is life in the womb. For the record, lets not call a child a lump of cells, clearly ANY medical professional or member of the scientific community would correct you.
How does your anti-abortion stance apply to partial molar pregnancies which involve a developing embryo?

-the mother is pregnant
-an embryo develops in to a fetus with severe defects
-the fetus will be quickly consumed by abnormal cell growth in the placenta
-the fetus will die in the womb
-the condition is known to produce an aggressive blood or bone cancer in the mother's body. If left untreated the mother will certainly die a painful death.

What's the cure?
-abort the pregnancy
-the mother receives extensive chemotherapy. Radiation can be administered if the condition is severe enough.

In this situation (your wife as a 1/1000 chance of getting it) do you have the doctor perform an abortion and your wife undergo chemo treatments, or do you wait for a miracle from your Lord to remedy the situation?
cornfed is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2008, 07:07 AM   #290
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNTRUCKIN View Post
The last thing, Kareless is way younger than I was thinking she was so I know she wasn't Disco dancing but that doesn't change the fact that her husband is old lol. Forget the Miami Vice thing on friday your to young your more like the Ally Mcbeal age.
Just to let you know I'm younger than Kareless... but thanks for the compliment about her..[/QUOTE]

O.K. I guess maybee oyur not such an old guy.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2008, 01:06 PM   #291
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,683
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornfed View Post
How does your anti-abortion stance apply to partial molar pregnancies which involve a developing embryo?

-the mother is pregnant
-an embryo develops in to a fetus with severe defects
-the fetus will be quickly consumed by abnormal cell growth in the placenta
-the fetus will die in the womb
-the condition is known to produce an aggressive blood or bone cancer in the mother's body. If left untreated the mother will certainly die a painful death.

What's the cure?
-abort the pregnancy
-the mother receives extensive chemotherapy. Radiation can be administered if the condition is severe enough.

In this situation (your wife as a 1/1000 chance of getting it) do you have the doctor perform an abortion and your wife undergo chemo treatments, or do you wait for a miracle from your Lord to remedy the situation?
It is cute and all with you, and others, picking the most extreme case you can, to try and unermine me personally, which may undermine my credibility, which would be a failed attempt to undermine the principles in the argument I am setting forth.... however, I will answer it, but on one condition: That you comment on what your views are with the 99% of actual normal pregnancies that get aborted. I will assume that you will be fair enough to do so, so now on to your question.

A 8 second google search reveals the following: "A partial molar pregnancy is a variation of a molar pregnancy, an abnormal pregnancy in which an embryo (the fertilized egg) either develops incompletely, or doesn’t develop at all. Instead, a cluster of grape-like cysts (known as a hydatidiform mole) grows in the uterus."

What started as a fertilized egg never formed into a child, it formed into a hydatidform mole because it had been fertilized by two sperm. This is not a child, it has to be removed. End of story.

Ok, your turn.
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2008, 01:22 PM   #292
jeepster95
Happy 2b Jeepin!
 
jeepster95's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-07-07
Location: Lapeer
Posts: 346
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

MY .02
Abortion is a speedy fix on an inconvience of a persons life.

15 yrs ago my wife was exposed to the german measles at 6 mnths pregnant,2 docs. told us to abort because the baby would be severely deformed. that Daughter is a normal beautiful 14yr old that has almost straight A's in high school. We prayed, had others in our church pray.

on another note we have a friend that had an abortion that regrets it every day of her life.

so.. its wrong, its a baby, that it.

people in the 1800's used the same style of arguments for slavery that people use for abortions now days, There not people,its a persons choice etc...
jeepster95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2008, 02:17 PM   #293
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,683
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepster95 View Post
MY .02
1. Abortion is a speedy fix on an inconvience of a persons life.

2. people in the 1800's used the same style of arguments for slavery that people use for abortions now days, There not people,its a persons choice etc...
1. I agree. 99 times out of 100 it is pure selfishness, with a blindfold over the eyes of justice.

2. This is the point of this thread, slavery and abortion is equals in that respect. "Oh, but how will our economy fuction without slaves?" WHO CARES! What is wrong is wrong, and no matter how long it has been allowed, it never became right.
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2008, 03:03 PM   #294
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,683
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

paging CJ7FUN
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2008, 03:03 PM   #295
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
1. I agree. 99 times out of 100 it is pure selfishness, with a blindfold over the eyes of justice.

2. This is the point of this thread, slavery and abortion is equals in that respect. "Oh, but how will our economy fuction without slaves?" WHO CARES! What is wrong is wrong, and no matter how long it has been allowed, it never became right.
Stop with the clear cut black and white thing. People don't understand that because it doesn't leave a way out for a mistake. Black and means you have to say I screwed up and society today doesn't do that. Theres no such thing as right and wrong it's this happened because and it's not my fault send me to REHAB.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2008, 06:18 PM   #296
K&J's Dad
Senior Member
 
K&J's Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-11-07
Location: Roseville, Michigan
Posts: 227
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

"...the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event we call 'quickening.' This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human -- in contrast with animal -- brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist in at least a primitive state."

When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered:

"If we’re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that’s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn’t happen with an embryo." 8

Under this argument, some primitive neurological activity in the cerebral cortex begins during the fifth month, conceivably as early as the 22nd week of pregnancy. If we allow a two week safety factor, then society could set the gestation time limit at which abortions should not be freely available at 20 weeks. Abortions could then be requested up to the start of the 20th week for normal pregnancies, or at a later time if unusual conditions existed. Many state and provincial medical associations in North America have actually adopted this limit, probably using a different rationale.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_argu.htm


"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado. (2002)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm


Darn religion always gets in the way. Dave, you sunconsciously let your religion get in the way from looking at it scientifically. This is why their are medical ethicists. They stop the religious folk from pushing their ways into politics.
K&J's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2008, 06:29 PM   #297
K&J's Dad
Senior Member
 
K&J's Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-11-07
Location: Roseville, Michigan
Posts: 227
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
For the record, lets not call a child a lump of cells, clearly ANY medical professional or member of the scientific community would correct you.
:chiefwoohaw::chiefwoohaw::chiefwoohaw:


Where did you get your facts from?? I would like to read where ANY medical professional or member of a scientific community would correct him. Is this your opinion that ANY would correct him? Or do you have facts to back it up?
K&J's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2008, 06:31 PM   #298
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by K&J's Dad View Post
:chiefwoohaw::chiefwoohaw::chiefwoohaw:


Where did you get your facts from?? I would like to read where ANY medical professional or member of a scientific community would correct him. Is this your opinion that ANY would correct him? Or do you have facts to back it up?
kerwin doesnt need facts, god speaks directly to him and tells him these things.
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2008, 07:36 PM   #299
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by K&J's Dad View Post
"...the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event we call 'quickening.' This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human -- in contrast with animal -- brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist in at least a primitive state."

When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered:

"If we’re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that’s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn’t happen with an embryo." 8

Under this argument, some primitive neurological activity in the cerebral cortex begins during the fifth month, conceivably as early as the 22nd week of pregnancy. If we allow a two week safety factor, then society could set the gestation time limit at which abortions should not be freely available at 20 weeks. Abortions could then be requested up to the start of the 20th week for normal pregnancies, or at a later time if unusual conditions existed. Many state and provincial medical associations in North America have actually adopted this limit, probably using a different rationale.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_argu.htm


"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado. (2002)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm


Darn religion always gets in the way. Dave, you sunconsciously let your religion get in the way from looking at it scientifically. This is why their are medical ethicists. They stop the religious folk from pushing their ways into politics.
Science has a funny way of changing their positions. I don't think Kewin is going to change his. He's my hero.
What do we do with the scientics and doctors that preach a Pro Life position and say " what matters for me" as Bonnie Stienbock said, is that at the time of conception with out unnatural intervention you have human life. From initial conception untill birth is nothing more than growth of the human body. It isn't any different than infancy to toddler, toddler to adolesent, and so on to natural death. To suggest human life does not exist based on a developing function of the body would suggest termination of a human should be an acceptable medical practice well after birth since certain functions of the human body occur after birth.

Are these people right. I think so
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2008, 07:42 PM   #300
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

[QUOTE=Mr Toes;895611]Science has a funny way of changing their positions. I don't think Kewin is going to change his. He's my hero.
What do we do with the scientists and doctors that preach a Pro Life position and say " what matters for me" as Bonnie Stienbock said, is that at the time of conception with out unnatural intervention you have human life. Initial conception untill birth is nothing more than growth of the human body. It isn't any different than infancy to toddler, toddler to adolesent, and so on to natural death. To suggest human life does not exist based on a developing function of the body would suggest termination of a human should be an acceptable medical practice well after birth since certain functions of the human body occur after birth.

Are these people right. I think so
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:42 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Copyright ©2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.37940 seconds with 50 queries