An Unborn Child is in Fact, Human

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Why do I have give people my viewpoints in dummy language?

Now, now - that's no way to talk about the Bible

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Now, now - that's no way to talk about the Bible

Well, you know. It's not that I don't think I have strong viewpoints on things, it's just I don't think people understand me because I'm so high-functioning. They expect me to come down on their level.

But you know, when you're high-functioning sometimes it is really hard to grasp what low-functioning is. You have to think about it for hours on end. Take Einstein for example. He could do advanced mathematics like a breeze, but he had real problems doing basic math. Strange, but true.

You see what I'm saying?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Cloud9
UR, do you honestly believe that those who know their partners well are at a higher risk of contracting an STD than those that don't? That is absurd! All couples should get tested for STD's before having sex, then that way they know for sure.

I am not blindly asserting. I am making logical reasoning. Case closed.

You are making some big assumptions:

1. There is a very high rate of one night stands (in the US)
2. There is a high rate of STD infections of those actively engaged in one night stands
3. Those who are engaged in one night stands do not use condoms for mutual protection.

You must substantiate these assumptions for your argument to have a chance.

Originally posted by Cloud9
What's with all this red herring stuff, btw?

Red herring is a logical fallacy.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Cloud9


It's not that I don't think I have strong viewpoints on things, it's just I don't think people understand me because I'm so high-functioning.

You see what I'm saying?

Yes - I think you're actually saying that you're a D/l

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You are making some big assumptions:

1. There is a very high rate of one night stands (in the US)
2. There is a high rate of STD infections of those actively engaged in one night stands
3. Those who are engaged in one night stands do not use condoms for mutual protection.

You must substantiate these assumptions for your argument to have a chance.

I'll get back with you on that, as soon as I get my low-functioning ethics worked out, ok?

Red herring is a logical fallacy.

So you mean to say that having irresponsible sex is worth the risk of contracting an STD or causing an unwanted pregnancy? That is so backwards. You need to get your priorities straight, dude.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Isn't sentience essentially the same as complex reasoning?

No. If so, some computer programs might be considered sentient.

IIRC, the distinguishing characteristic of sentience is self-awareness.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Laugh it up, bonehead! I'll prove it to you.

There is nothing in the Bible that defines what a zygote, embryo, or a fetus is. God see's the unborn as just the unborn. These terms do not exist in the Bible.

Science, however, came up with these terms as a way to organize the process of human development.

So since the scientific terms zygote, embryo, and fetus have no relationship to the Bible, then there are no specifics in the Bible. The Bible is speaking of the unborn in general.

There! Do you better understand now?

Yes - I think you're actually saying that you're a D/l

Huh? What's a D/l?

[Jon Miller]

Cloud9

could those terms not be in the Bible bacuse the people of the time had no term for them?

I am pro-life for fetuses and might be for Zygotes and Embryos, but you cannot base your arguments on the bible when you are arguing with those who do not beleive it

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Cloud9
So you mean to say that having irresponsible sex is worth the risk of contracting an STD or causing an unwanted pregnancy? That is so backwards. You need to get your priorities straight, dude.

1. Do you know what does it mean by "irrelevant?"
2. You are assuming that your assumptions are right, wrt to the STD bull.
3. You are assuming that only so called "irresponsible" sex will have unwanted consequences.

Your arguments have holes so big that supertankers can go through with ease.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
could those terms not be in the Bible bacuse the people of the time had no term for them?

Jon Miller

Well, it's quite obvious that science wasn't quite as advanced back then, and the people at that time had no real understanding of the process of human development.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
1. Do you know what does it mean by "irrelevant?"
2. You are assuming that your assumptions are right, wrt to the STD bull.
3. You are assuming that only so called "irresponsible" sex will have unwanted consequences.

Your arguments have holes so big that supertankers can go through with ease.

You do need someone to explain things to you in dummy language, don't you?

Irresponsible sex is defined as the failure to use contraceptives and to have your partner tested for STD's before having sex.

I don't see where you're coming from on the other "holes." Perhaps you should speak to me in dummy language.

[Akka]

Nothing worse than a cretin thinking he's a genius.

I propose to skip Cloud9 and spend time with pro-lifers that have actually something valuable to add to the discussion.

EDIT : I mean, if there is any left that has anything left to add.

[CyberGnu]

Well, you know. It's not that I don't think I have strong viewpoints on things, it's just I don't think people understand me because I'm so high-functioning. They expect me to come down on their level.

Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

Thanks for that, a good laugh is supposed to be good for you.

[CyberGnu]

There is nothing in the Bible that defines what a zygote, embryo, or a fetus is. God see's the unborn as just the unborn. These terms do not exist in the Bible.

Science, however, came up with these terms as a way to organize the process of human development.

So since the scientific terms zygote, embryo, and fetus have no relationship to the Bible, then there are no specifics in the Bible. The Bible is speaking of the unborn in general.

And you are still skirting the issue. The fact remains that the bible does not define when an embryo turns into a human being. You might be right. You might be wrong. The bible doesn't tell you which one. So we are left with science. Science says it isn't a human being until it is sentient.

As someone mentioned in a thread about evolution once: If God created this whole thing, he obviously expected us to figure it out for ourselves. Claiming that he left dinosaur bones in the earth trick us is just insulting him...

And likewise with this issue. Supporting your view based on a wishful interpretation of the bible would be insulting...

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
And you are still skirting the issue. The fact remains that the bible does not define when an embryo turns into a human being. You might be right. You might be wrong. The bible doesn't tell you which one. So we are left with science. Science says it isn't a human being until it is sentient.

And likewise with this issue. Supporting your view based on a wishful interpretation of the bible would be insulting...

Well, you're the one that asked, so, you get what you ask for. A wishful interpretation? I think I've made my point very clear. How much dumber can you get? Or are you still just trying to give me a hard time?