Good choice. . .
Why would anyone want to be led by your contemptuous intellect to the land of contempt?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Life Begins at Conception
- Thread starter Darkness
- Start date
- Status
Good choice. . .
Why would anyone want to be led by your contemptuous intellect to the land of contempt?
Smoke
Done here.
You can lead a zealot to data, but you can't make him think.
You'll excuse me if I take a pass on your variety of "intellectual maturity."
You can shine the light on a blind man, but you can't make him see.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:biglaugh:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
uh huh :guitar1:uh huh
smokydot: If the zygote splits, it dies.
The zygote (union of sperm and ovum) does not split.
It doubles itself (no longer just a union of sperm and ovum) before cleavage into the blastomere.
If the zygote (union of sperm and ovum) splits, it dies.
The zygote (union of sperm and ovum) does not split.
It doubles itself (no longer just a union of sperm and ovum) before cleavage into the blastomere.
If the zygote (union of sperm and ovum) splits, it dies.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You'll have to look up the statistics.
But happening often, or not at all, does not alter the correct use of the terminology.
Zygotes do not split, they double themselves before cleavage into a blastomere.
They must become a diploid (no longer just a union of sperm and ovum) in order to become a blastomere.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You're talking out your ***.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
What happens when a zygote splits?
Does it die, as you said? And if so, is it rare or common - at least.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Are you only using the term because you just saw me use it?
Sometimes talking with you feels like trying to carry on a conversation with ELIZA.
The misrepresentation is in your implication that the Declaration of Independence has anything at all to do with the current state of the law anywhere.
The fact that government does do things to protect life doesn't mean that it must do things to protect life.
What is your issue with this statement?
Why do you object to its readily-apparent veracity?
What is your reason for arguing against it?[/quote]
Since you've abandoned your argument that abortion should be illegal, I probably have no reason to argue against it, actually.
Of course there is. You just don't want to admit it.
You've got a position and you're searching for an argument. This often requires premises to be shoehorned in where they don't normally fit.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Nevermind the complete ignorance of human development. My goodness.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
No, it starts in about second century Christianity.
How about before that? Have you come across any earlier Jewish sources that speak against abortion?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yes - there's a passage in the law about penalties for the killing of a fetus, but Jewish interpreters went both ways on it - a minority proscribed abortion, but the majority argue that it's not addressed.
Here's a note from earlier:
Didache 2:1-2 - Christian - 70CE
No.
Demonstration:
I am using it because, instead of addressing the question presented (regarding misrepresention in my statement), your response tried to distract to another and irrelevant argument, which makes yours a red herring argument.
Will be addressed below.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Statement in question: It is the responsibility of the State to protect human life.
I am not implying "that the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with current state of the law anywhere."
Demonstration:
You said my statement sounds like a misrepresentation (post #1018).
I am asking if you think the Declaration of Independence also sounds like a misrepresentation, as you claim my statement sounds.
My implication is: because my statement so closely parallels the language of the Declaration of Independence, my statement can only sound like a misrepresentation if the Declaration of Independence also sounds like a misrepresentation. . .which it does not, therefore, my statement does not.
I say it does. . .because that's why we instituted government.
What is your issue with this statement?
Why do you object to its readily-apparent veracity?
What is your reason for arguing against it?
I have not argued that abortion should be illegal.
Can you show where I have?
Present the facts that show my statement is a misrepresentation, and I will be happy to admit it.
Okay, here's why you think talking to me is like carrying on a conversation with ELIZA.
You misunderstand and incorrectly assume implications and premises that do not exist.
The statement in question is not my premise for human life beginning at conception.
Demonstration:
The statement was a response to the assertion that the mother has the right, without interference from the state, to decide what happens to her child.
I responded to the assertion with
a) she did not have the right to neglect the child, abandon the child, abuse the child, etc.,
b) the state did have the right to interfere,
c) because it is the responsibility of the state to protect human life.
That statement has never been offered as a premise for my argument that human life begins at conception.
That is a false assumption on your part.
There is no shoehorning in this case. . .there is only demonstrated false assumption by those who claim such.
Last edited:
- Status