Interesting article from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

[sox4lifeinPA]

I bow to the post, but I also recognize John Mccain as being an ass.

 

 

also: If miss pa were raped and she were pregnant, then I'd probably make her take the morning after pill. Like I said, where does life begin? conception is the start to life, but I would probably rest in the heart beat being the start. I would guess that would be GWB's thoughts too.

 

good post.

[jackie hayes]

I bow to the post, but I also recognize John Mccain as being an ass.

 

 

also: If miss pa were raped and she were pregnant, then I'd probably make her take the morning after pill. Like I said, where does life begin? conception is the start to life, but I would probably rest in the heart beat being the start. I would guess that would be GWB's thoughts too.

 

good post.

If that were his position, he would not make an exception for rape and incest at all; instead he'd want a time limit or test of some sort (ie, a test for a heartbeat). So if that is his belief, it's still inconsistent.

[sox4lifeinPA]

If that were his position, he would not make an exception for rape and incest at all; instead he'd want a time limit or test of some sort (ie, a test for a heartbeat).  So if that is his belief, it's still inconsistent.

yeah, sure.

[Rex Kickass]

I bow to the post, but I also recognize John Mccain as being an ass.

 

 

also: If miss pa were raped and she were pregnant, then I'd probably make her take the morning after pill. Like I said, where does life begin? conception is the start to life, but I would probably rest in the heart beat being the start. I would guess that would be GWB's thoughts too.

 

good post.

Sox4Life: Emergency Contraception (aka the Morning After Pill) does not destroy a fertilized egg. It prevents fertilization. If she has already conceived, she will stay pregnant.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Sox4Life: Emergency Contraception (aka the Morning After Pill) does not destroy a fertilized egg. It prevents fertilization. If she has already conceived, she will stay pregnant.

yeah, it usually works within 72 hours of the incident... which typically the woman knows about if she using this pill to stop conception.

 

 

I know a girl who was 17 and walked into planned parenthood and got the morning after pill twice in 6 months, no questions asked...except, you're 18 right? good.

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, that's pretty sad.

[GASHWOUND]

For those with little or no no religious or Christian education, it's easy to understand that "God speaks through me" is an ackward phrase. It's actually an unselfish wish and desire that embodies the idea that the words and actions that you or I say and do, are not simply contrived from our own limited comprehension and facilities, but that of God's Spirit, Grace and blessings.

 

It's ok to think it's creepy, but realize it shows your lack of understanding the issue.

 

John Kerry is trying to pander to undecided conservatives by talking about his faith and shooting guns. (because obviously those go hand in hand). My point is that his timing is a clear picture to anyone with the gift of testing the spirit (also a concept you're probably not familiar with) that he's way off in his faith.

 

 

that's my point.

When Bush says it it reeks of arrogance and delusional religious fanaticism.

Alot of people at least pretend to be humble in the face of their god maybe phrasing it a bit differently. Of course when Bush says "God speaks through me" its an

an unselfish wish and desire that embodies the idea that the words and actions that you or I say and do, are not simply contrived from our own limited comprehension and facilities, but that of God's Spirit, Grace and blessings.

 

But when an athlete of musician says it..well, their nutso..

 

When you talk to God, you're praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.

--Thomas Szasz, M.D.

 

Pray for all means Mr. Bush.. Hey, I went to Catholic School for 2 years...an alter boy for 1 year..I go once a month to my church to help out..like setting up the tables and chairs for the festivities they hold there and such..It's not like I never been to church or refuse to believe in a god..I truly do.

But being pres, don't claim god speaks through you..that you're God's mouthpiece.

Coming from you it doesn't come off well..even coming from a priest it doesn't come off well..believing there is a higher power and you pray to him privately to help you make the right decisions is one thing...saying something that sounds schizo is another

 

that's my point

[Rex Kickass]

where does life begin? when a baby breaths fresh air? or when the heart starts pumping?

 

While I buy into the anti-death penalty somewhat, I know that it's not necessarily a black and white answer when it comes to death and the bible. At some point God cherishes life, but I don't know if God cherishes the entirity of a persons life. There comes a point where a person forever choses to be the enemy of God.

 

 

 

just curious, I'm not really sure.

Where does life begin? That's a great question. I don't think its one that our society can answer with any good consensus as of yet. Personally, I believe that life begins at conception. But I think that we have to make a line at where that life becomes a human being and not just a mass of cells. I'm not qualified to make that answer.

 

The truth is, abortion should be safe but rare. Let me tell you why. I have a close friend who excitedly called me four months ago about the possibility of having twins with his wife. Turns out, no twins, just a baby whose head would not grow around her brain. There was no way to save this baby after birth, the ten hours she would possibly live after birth would be extremely painful. She would however survive in the womb. However, carrying the baby to term created risks for the mother. After much soul searching, they decided to terminate the pregnancy. It was the last thing they wanted to do, but it was the thing they felt they had to do.

 

Life is life. It's sacred, and we shouldn't give it up but for the most extreme circumstances. Just wars, situations like I just described. The death penalty - not acceptable.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The whole 'when does life begin' argument is made unnecessarily dificult by adding the distinction "human" life to the question either implicitly or explicitly. Living cells are in play before the fertilization event but reasonably, nobody is out crying about the unrealized potential of as haploid gamet (good thing too, with a half-billion or so unused sperm with each discharge). But the fact remains that the unique genetic identity of every individual is already there - just housed in two distinct propagules until fertilization.

 

So, then should it be fertilization that defines the dividing line between when the raw material of an incipient human is sacred?

 

Well, if that were the case, then the Divine Agent (for those who concede one) is the single biggest baby killer of them all, as fully 1/2 of all successful fertilization evvents end in spontaneous abortion because something is just not quite right. Sometimes that is prior to implantation, sometimes it is in utero, but it usually occurs without the motther even knowing she had conceived...

 

Well it wouldn't do for the Right to Lifers to give it up for a God who has so handily smoked the competition in the great abortion contest, so maybe there is some argument as to whether human life bigins at conception or sometime thereafter. Genetically there is no argument 1-celled fertilized ovum is identical to a zygote, blastula, gastrella, embryo, fetus... college freshman. Why thee Divine Agent would kill 50% of the successful fertilization events is, I surmise, chalked up to His Mysterious Ways, but it sure makes folks jumpy about what happens to the other half.

 

The presence of a heartbeat, a nerve tube, sensory reflex, etc., are all arbitrary benchmarks on the way to a full term baby.

[Wong & Owens]

The whole 'when does life begin' argument is made unnecessarily dificult by adding the distinction "human" life to the question either implicitly or explicitly.  Living cells are in play before the fertilization event but reasonably, nobody is out crying about the unrealized potential of as haploid gamet (good thing too, with a half-billion or so unused sperm with each discharge).  But the fact remains that the unique genetic identity of every individual is already there - just housed in two distinct propagules until fertilization.

 

So, then should it be fertilization that defines the dividing line between when the raw material of an incipient human is sacred?

 

Well, if that were the case, then the Divine Agent (for those who concede one) is the single biggest baby killer of them all, as fully 1/2 of all successful fertilization evvents end in spontaneous abortion because something is just not quite right.  Sometimes that is prior to implantation, sometimes it is in utero, but it usually occurs without the motther even knowing she had conceived...

 

Well it wouldn't do for the Right to Lifers to give it up for a God who has so handily smoked the competition in the great abortion contest, so maybe there is some argument as to whether human life bigins at conception or sometime thereafter.  Genetically there is no argument 1-celled fertilized ovum is identical to a zygote, blastula, gastrella, embryo, fetus... college freshman.  Why thee Divine Agent would kill 50% of the successful fertilization events is, I surmise, chalked up to His Mysterious Ways, but it sure makes folks jumpy about what happens to the other half.

 

The presence of a heartbeat, a nerve tube, sensory reflex, etc., are all arbitrary benchmarks on the way to a full term baby.

Another question I've always had regarding this whole "sacredness of life" concept is-- Why is the life of vegetation and other animal species not as important to the big G? The spread of humanity across the world has eliminated thousands and thousands of species of fauna and flora, why is that OK?

[Texsox]

also: If miss pa were raped and she were pregnant, then I'd probably make her take the morning after pill.

I might not make my wife take the pill, but I know in my heart I would support that decision. For that reason alone, I cannot join the Pro-Life movement. I also know if my daughter was raped and said nothing, and 6 or 7 months down the line, we could tell, I would support her decision there.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Another question I've always had regarding this whole "sacredness of life" concept is-- Why is the life of vegetation and other animal species not as important to the big G?  The spread of humanity across the world has eliminated thousands and thousands of species of fauna and flora, why is that OK?

It's because WE have a soul and THEY don't, silly

 

And, there is not an ink color green enough to convey the degree to which sarcasm is supposed to be dripping off of that one.

 

btw, I think the whole haves versus have-note re the soul argument is probably also put in play regarding whatever savages du-jour we have in our sights... slaves, native Americans, Japanese in WWII, Muslims now. Basically, the sooner they all learn God like us and hates them (which is convenient, certainly), the better off we'll all be.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Another question I've always had regarding this whole "sacredness of life" concept is-- Why is the life of vegetation and other animal species not as important to the big G?  The spread of humanity across the world has eliminated thousands and thousands of species of fauna and flora, why is that OK?

Genesis 1

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

 

 

ask and you shall receive.

[sox4lifeinPA]

It's because WE have a soul and THEY don't, silly

 

And, there is not an ink color green enough to convey the degree to which sarcasm is supposed to be dripping off of that one.

 

btw, I think the whole haves versus have-note re the soul argument is probably also put in play regarding whatever savages du-jour we have in our sights... slaves, native Americans, Japanese in WWII, Muslims now.  Basically, the sooner they all learn God like us and hates them (which is convenient, certainly), the better off we'll all be.

booo all of that.

[FlaSoxxJim]

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

 

Boooo all of that.

[Wong & Owens]

Genesis 1

 

 

ask and you shall receive.

thats a passage from the story of adam and eve, right?

 

(muffled snicker)

[sox4lifeinPA]

thats a passage from the story of adam and eve, right?

 

(muffled snicker)

you asked for biblical reasoning, I simply offered it.

 

 

 

This board is full of condescending assholes and elitists. Why even bother to post anything if you're just hating on everyone?

 

 

pathetic.

[Wong & Owens]

you asked for biblical reasoning, I simply offered it.

 

 

 

This board is full of condescending assholes and elitists.  Why even bother to post anything if you're just hating on everyone?

 

 

pathetic.

I wasn't hating, I snickered.

 

So, if I understand correctly, is that your reasonning for accepting it as OK-- that the bible contains a passage that explicity says so?

[sox4lifeinPA]

I wasn't hating, I snickered.

 

So, if I understand correctly, is that your reasonning for accepting it as OK-- that the bible contains a passage that explicity says so?

well, yes and no.

 

I think we have a responsibility to maintain and protect the environment we live in, but I also recognize the earth as our living ground and source of sustinance. While I understand the perspective that God would honor all life human or non-human, I also think none of us can comprehend the vastness of a infinite being of God. For all I know the earth is just our toy box and it's not a concern for him, or it could be an essential part of our life on earth and he's super-pissed. I guess I'm somewhere in the middle and choose to both accept my dominance over all living species and also protect and preserve them.

 

thoughts?

[jackie hayes]

It's because WE have a soul and THEY don't, silly

 

And, there is not an ink color green enough to convey the degree to which sarcasm is supposed to be dripping off of that one.

 

btw, I think the whole haves versus have-note re the soul argument is probably also put in play regarding whatever savages du-jour we have in our sights... slaves, native Americans, Japanese in WWII, Muslims now.  Basically, the sooner they all learn God like us and hates them (which is convenient, certainly), the better off we'll all be.

So, wait, the question was, why are humans more sacred than plants and animals -- and you're rejecting it, you're rejecting human exceptionalism? You think killing a person is tantamount to eating a salad? However a soul argument has been misapplied, I still don't see a radish as my equal. (Yeah, alright, I can guess the jokes -- everyone I've had an argument w/ is gonna come out of the woodwork now... )

[FlaSoxxJim]

So, wait, the question was, why are humans more sacred than plants and animals -- and you're rejecting it, you're rejecting human exceptionalism?  You think killing a person is tantamount to eating a salad?  However a soul argument has been misapplied, I still don't see a radish as my equal.  (Yeah, alright, I can guess the jokes -- everyone I've had an argument w/ is gonna come out of the woodwork now...  )

As far as the rhetorical query as to whether we trump raddishes on a scale of worth, yes of course we do.

 

As far as the more fundamental question regarding the issue of "human exceptionalism" (I very much like that term, by the way), well yes, with approproate caveats I do reject it.

 

Certainly we cannot be deemed exceptional by how long we have existed on earth. The average duration of a species (and continued existence is the only real biological measure for success) is 5 million years, according to recent best estimates. Really well designed species - sharks, turtles, etc, have been around for orders of magnitude longer than that. The genus Homo has well under a million years under its belt.

 

That, scant sliver of time in which we have existed as a species, compared to the total time in which life as existed on the planet (4+ billion years) should put things in perspective - should underscore the absurdity (sp?) of a notion that a Divine Agent set the universe in motion (14+ billion years ago), and it has all come down to this hiccup in time where we're on the scene.

 

It was a lot easier to be the center of God's universe when folks bought into the 7-day rush job, all of life blinking into being on the same day and the world literally being th center of the universe. Given the realities that we're really such Johnny-come-latelys tto the party, to suggest that we are given dominion over the fishes and fowl yada yada that preceded us for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS... well, let's just say that is a discussion best left to Sunday School, rather than being seriously considered.

 

Certainly we cannot be deemed exceptional by the content of our raw genetic material. We're 99+% chimpanzeem, as PA himself had noted here severl months ago I think.

 

Where we DO measure off the charts is in the intangible manifestations of those genes. Our gene products allow us to do things no species has ever done before. It is truly incredible and yes there is a cognitive quantum leap between us and our closest DNA relatives.

 

But what iis that exceptionalism worth? Is it worth national-scale deforestation, global warming, and an antrhopogenic (human-induced) mass extinction rate greater than even the great extinction events of the K-T (when the dino's bought it), or the even larger Permean extinction event well before that? When we are ggone - having smarted ourselves out of esistence - and when we've taken maybbe half the planet's biodiversity with us in our gluttony and waste and ignorance - what will that exceptionalism be worth?

[sox4lifeinPA]

We're 99+% chimpanzeem, as PA himself had noted here severl months ago I think.

 

I made no such note, but I don't disagree with that statement. Show me the fossil records that gets you from Junkey the circus monkey to FlaSoxxJim and then we'll talk.

 

As for the 7 days bit, whether it took 6 days or 6 billion years, the point is who made it, not how long. Science shows us it's 6 billion years worth of development, great, that doesn't negate Gods hand in creation.

[CrimsonWeltall]

A = Chimpanzee

L = Homo Sapiens Sapiens

[FlaSoxxJim]

I made no such note, but I don't disagree with that statement. Show me the fossil records that gets you from Junkey the circus monkey to FlaSoxxJim and then we'll talk.

 

As for the 7 days bit, whether it took 6 days or 6 billion years, the point is who made it, not how long. Science shows us it's 6 billion years worth of development, great, that doesn't negate Gods hand in creation.

Asking for unassailable proof from an incomplete fossil record is a classic Creation "Science" tactic. Sadly, the fossil record is incomplete - in places woefully so.

 

As for the "I didn't come from no monkey" quip - we've been here before. No evolutionnary biologist ever said modern man evolved from monkeys. rather, all modern advanced primates evolved from a common ancestry, with each each branch splitting off off of an ancestral trunk at a different point in time.

 

I'm actually more amazed there is as much intact fossil record as ther is because it's really hard for organic material to fossilize and it doesn't happen very often.

 

That said, with each new tool scientists come up with... comparative homology, cladistics, biological clocks, comparative proteomics, comparative genomics... the evidence in support of Neodarwinian evolution and descent from shared ancestry becomes stronger rather than weaker. Fossils are actually one of the weaker sources of evidence these days - but they're sooo b****in' anyway so it's alright.

 

As for negating God's Hand in creation - it's not the concern of science. God's Hand is an untestable, and thus falls outside the realm of science by definition.

 

God's Hand does fall within the realm of philosophy, however, so please (sincerely please) answer this. How can a rational person take seriously the suggestion that we were preordained to be given dominion over the "fish of the sea" (first appeared ca. 408 mybp) and the "birds of he air" (first appeared ca. 208 mybp) when we pretty much just showed up in tthe last million years or so? It seems the fish and birds and all other beasts were doing quie well before we came along to steward them.

 

The whole dominion deal harkens back to the antiquated notions of man cast in God's likeness, during that first hectic week in Genesis (when Peter Gabriel was still with them, natch), under the firmament, at the center of the universe...

[FlaSoxxJim]

A = Chimpanzee

L = Homo Sapiens Sapiens

A lot of divergent evolution since we parted ways a few million years ago.

 

We look a lot less like a sponge, precisely because the evolutionary line that spawned us parted ways with that spawning sponges even further back.