for you, yup!This is a serious thread?
Ah, science and religion. So science says (as one example):
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29
For Christians, it is at the conception event.
thats obviously all part of Gods plan.Except for those Christians who use in vitro and then allow the unused embryos to thaw out and die. What murderous scum these Christians are. God will have a nasty surprise for them when they find themselves burning in hell for eternity for this supreme wickedness.
Don't ever ever use Christians as a moral example. Christians are over-represented in our prisons, over-represented in hate crimes and over-represented in bigotry and discrimination. This is no secret and you can google the shit for yourself.
for you, yup!
I enjoy your thoughtful perspective.
Pretty much always the case in america, so much to be angry about. YDKWYGTIGSounds like a bunch of people want to get their pitch forks out.
just sadness that our society has become so callous that we can think of no better alternative than to kill an unborn child.
Oh I definitely agree it's a sad topic, but you are once again trying to speak for others while casting much of the debate aside. It's not that our society that changed, it's the political designs of those you follow, the ones who decided to make abortion a wedge issue in 1976. If that hadn't happened, you guys would be complaining about some other issue that you want to control people over. Who the hell is we?
I consider adoption a better alternative, but I know it's not my call to make. I have no idea what a better alternative is for a woman I don't know and neither do you. I think people the complaint of callousness wrt to this topic is a hoot. Somehow butting into probably the most private aspect of someone's personal life, trying to dictate their choices is OK, but exercising personal liberty over your own body, that's callous?
I watched a debate that included William Lane Craig. Craig defended Biblical genocide by arguing that all the children murdered by the Jews at God's command received the ultimate gift by going to heaven.
If Craig's theology is correct, I would argue that any Christian opposing abortion is a moral monster. Think about what they are doing. They are attempting to deny the ultimate gift to millions of unwanted embryos. They say they want more souls in heaven and then work feverishly to oppose it. If they succeed how many fewer souls will enter heaven and how many more will enter hell? If you really believe your theology (and of course you don't) you can have no moral objective to sending to souls to heaven, just ask Craig.
If God has no problem butchering children like cattle (which he does over and over and over again in the Bible), why do Christians? Seriously what is with God's fetish with killing kids in the Bible? He does it with bears, with worldwide floods, when doing the genocide thing, when performing abortions himself and as payment from his followers to get his aid to slaughter their enemies (Japtheth).
thats obviously all part of Gods plan.
Of course. Once you realize that many religious folks want Plan B banned because it might cause a fertilized egg to fail to implant "killing a baby".
However regular old procreation averages around 1 miscarriage per every live birth. Those don't count as dead kids or at least nobody's responsible or something.
You did not read my response and no I will not shut up. You have your right to express an opinion as do I.There are alternatives, like Birth Control methods and Education, but your types oppose them too.
So kindly STFU about sadness.
Ah, science and religion. So science says (as one example):
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29
For Christians, it is at the conception event.
You did not read my response and no I will not shut up. You have your right to express an opinion as do I.
That's like saying pro-gun people are pro killing. Supporting someone's right to chose or bear arms doesn't mean they condone what choice someone makes or someone choses to kill with a gun.
There are alternatives to killing a baby.
That's not a valid reason to legislate it.For Christians, it is at the conception event.
You should have some conceptual framework to debate the merits of your approach vs mine or anyone else. Otherwise your responses are simply playing "gotcha" while not offering your own specifics though you dance around them as best you can.Ive been accepting yours as conceptual framework. Youve not been reading my posts.
The next step in your plan is funding. So line by line of your framework, expand and define limits of what youre willing to offer, and where the money is coming from.
The difference between you and I will likely be what we want offered to the young ones after theyre born.
Why would I have framework? I dont personally agree with the abortion, but Im not one to impose on a persons freedom and choice what they do with their body.
just out of curiousity, how my kids have you adopted, ans how many kids have you provided foster care for?
What do you see as the governments role in your multifaceted framework?
Or killed.
I bet if I did a search on the forums about Trump's desire to bomb entire families for members supporting terror, your disagreement will just be everywhere, right? Were you similarly enraged about the civility of dropping bombs on people when you thought Saddam was able to attack us with all those WMDs?
The religious right's concern for life is hardly consistent and is therefor easy to dismiss. Kinda like preaching about class and dignity, then voting overwhelmingly for a bigoted conman and sexual predator.
What has any of this to do with the topic? Can we not just say that killing babies is wrong and save the debate over war and its casualties for a separate topic?
Except for those Christians who use in vitro and then allow the unused embryos to thaw out and die. What murderous scum these Christians are. God will have a nasty surprise for them when they find themselves burning in hell for eternity for this supreme wickedness.
Killing babies is wrong. But I think we disagree on the definition of baby. To be a baby a birth needs to occur first.
In the words of the famous Jedi master:
"Fear is the path to the dark side, Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
Control your fear and your anger will subside.
The Catholic church opposes in vitro for these reasons, among others.
I don't see how that makes sense. The event of birth doesn't confer any status on the child that wasn't there 10 minutes before, or two days before, or a month before.