tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5426321524409052674..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Three Chickens Over Easy with ToastUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83110885285953445892007-06-14T10:21:00.000-04:002007-06-14T10:21:00.000-04:00Thank you for your willingness to support a statem...Thank you for your willingness to support a statement with concrete data. The data does indeed show that only a minority of abortions are performed due to "save the mother", as you put it. However, the data doesn't seem to support your charge of "convenience killing":<BR/><BR/><I>Yet some broad concepts emerged from the study. A cross-cutting theme was women’s responsibility to children and other dependents, as well as considerations about children they may have in the future. Most women in every age, parity, relationship, racial, income and education category cited concern for or responsibility to other individuals as a factor in their decision to have an abortion. <B>In contrast to the perception (voiced by politicians and laypeople across the ideological spectrum) that women who choose abortion for reasons other than rape, incest and life endangerment do so for “convenience,” our data suggest that after carefully assessing their individual situations, women base their decisions largely on their ability to maintain economic stability and to care for the children they already have.</B></I> (pg. 117)<BR/><BR/>Do you consider having an abortion based on consideration of the ability to maintain economic stability and care for the children one already has a "convenience killing"? If so, then by your reasoning using any type of birth-control also constitutes a "convenience killing", does it not? After all, sperm and eggs, in the natural course of things, become what? Answer - a zygote. So unless you use no form of birth control whatsoever, I guess you are also a convenience killer?<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><I>A zygote cannot have brainwaves until it DEVELOPS to a certain point.</I><BR/><BR/>Agreed!<BR/><BR/><I>It must be ALIVE to develop.</I><BR/><BR/>As mentioned before, I also agree that a zygote constitutes living matter.<BR/><BR/><I>Abortion kills DEVELOPING HUMAN BEINGS.</I><BR/><BR/>Developing, yep, but human beings? Please tell me by what standard a zygote qualifies as a human being. Telling me it has a soul doesn't work, since you haven't given me any evidence for the existence of souls. And the argument that a zygote = a human being because it has the *potential* to become a human being doesn't work, unless you've already gone to your grocer to give back all the money you've withheld from them by under-paying for your eggs, I mean potential chickens, all this time? And I'm still waiting for you to give me a convincing reason why my brain-wave standard of personhood doesn't work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83866111249499383192007-06-13T23:01:00.000-04:002007-06-13T23:01:00.000-04:00Benny,Here's some data for your Benny:http://www.g...Benny,<BR/><BR/>Here's some data for your Benny:<BR/>http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf<BR/><BR/>I repeat - abortion is a convenience killing. You can't refute the data. <BR/><BR/>A zygote cannot have brainwaves until it DEVELOPS to a certain point. It must be ALIVE to develop. Abortion kills DEVELOPING HUMAN BEINGS. <BR/><BR/>I know its hard for you Benny. The brainwashing you have undergone is difficult to overcome.LivingDusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08720875895794590283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81895002453107251902007-06-13T00:37:00.000-04:002007-06-13T00:37:00.000-04:00A zygote, left undistubed in a mother's womb, dies...A zygote, left undistubed in a mother's womb, dies in up to 50% of the cases:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm" REL="nofollow">LINK</A><BR/><BR/>It doesn't seem like God cares all that much about zygotes, eh?<BR/><BR/>And once again, potential for X != X. Or do you think super-markets should charge as much for a single egg as they do for an entire chicken? If so, you should really act on your convictions and go give your grocer all the money you've been with-holding from them by under-paying for your eggs all this time!<BR/><BR/>If you still want to insist that personhood begins at conception, please address my argument that personhood only exists when brain waves exist.<BR/><BR/><I>Abortion is a convenience killing. Rarely are abortions to "save the mother".</I><BR/><BR/>Would you care to back this up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84966488306850013272007-06-12T23:13:00.000-04:002007-06-12T23:13:00.000-04:00Benny,A zygote, left undisturbed to term in a moth...Benny,<BR/><BR/>A zygote, left undisturbed to term in a mothers womb, becomes what?<BR/><BR/>Answer - an infant human being. <BR/><BR/>Your death culture logic is quite sickening. Abortion is a convenience killing. Rarely are abortions to "save the mother".LivingDusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08720875895794590283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79897829761085669072007-06-08T23:04:00.000-04:002007-06-08T23:04:00.000-04:00Abortion involves killing. The zygote, which fulfi...<I>Abortion involves killing. The zygote, which fulfills the criteria needed to establish the existence of biological life (metabolism, development, the ability to react to stimuli, and cell reproduction), is indeed terminated.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, a zygote is a living organism. So are dairy animals, trees, and bacteria. The question is, does abortion necessarily involve killing of *human beings*?<BR/><BR/><I>Abortion kills human beings.</I><BR/><BR/>Nice, way to skip the whole "discussion" thing by asserting your conclusion as fact :)<BR/><BR/><I>The child that is terminated is the product of human parents and has a totally distinct human genetic code.</I><BR/><BR/>If the zygote doesn't have personhood at the time of abortion, it's not a child.<BR/><BR/><I>Although the emerging embryo does not have a fully developed personality, it does have complete personhood from the moment of conception.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, you simply assert your conclusion as if it's fact. I've described my definition of personhood. Tell me why I'm wrong, and why you're right.<BR/><BR/><I>It's really not suprising that Darwinists support the holocaust and the eating of babies.</I><BR/><BR/>I've seen a lot baseless statements before, but this really takes the cake! I nominate this for the "statement pulled out of thin air" award! Exactly who do you see supporting the Holocaust and baby-eating?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29892618417641267292007-06-08T22:43:00.000-04:002007-06-08T22:43:00.000-04:00Abortion involves killing. The zygote, which fulfi...Abortion involves killing. The zygote, which fulfills the criteria needed to establish the existence of biological life (metabolism, development, the ability to react to stimuli, and cell reproduction), is indeed terminated. Abortion kills human beings. The child that is terminated is the product of human parents and has a totally distinct human genetic code. Although the emerging embryo does not have a fully developed personality, it does have complete personhood from the moment of conception.<BR/><BR/>It's really not suprising that Darwinists support the holocaust and the eating of babies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20534218208950164702007-06-08T20:00:00.000-04:002007-06-08T20:00:00.000-04:00A person is classified as dead, both legally and s...A person is classified as dead, both legally and scientifically, when s/he enters the state of permanent brain death. In the US, brain activity or the ability to resume brain activity is a necessary condition for legal personhood. Applying this standard to the other end of the life cycle yields a scientific method for determining when a fetus achieves personhood. As it turns out, the brain structures necessary for brain waves are not present before 20-24 weeks, meaning it is flat out impossible for brain waves to exist prior to this time. Thus, we can say that personhood does not begin until after the 20th week of gestation.<BR/><BR/>Those who wish to object because they believe a fetus possesses a soul from the moment of conception, must first convince the rest of us of the existence of souls.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62161492965988250932007-06-07T23:28:00.000-04:002007-06-07T23:28:00.000-04:00Where is the line between a human being who can be...Where is the line between a human being who can be murdered and an object which can be owned, or disposed of?<BR/><BR/>Nobody knows. Currently, in the US, the line (legally speaking) seems to be somewhere between six months after conception and the moment of birth.<BR/><BR/>Christian Fundamentalists are scared to death of committing murder - So we try to move the line backwards in time, just in case. If the line were at 3 months after conception, we would be scared that maybe some 2 months and 20 days fetus would count as a person (in God's eyes), and that we would have accidentally treated a person as an object, and murdered an innocent when we thought we were disposing of an object. So we always try to move the line backwards in time, just in case - <I>because</I> we understand that it's a gray area, and we believe <I>so strongly</I> in protecting the innocent.<BR/><BR/>We're <I>horrified</I> that the political left wing seems to want to move the line forwards in time. We simply cannot understand it. You guys always talk about protecting the innocent, right?<BR/><BR/>You know, there was a time when it was in question whether black people were people or objects to be owned. There was science behind it, called 'Eugenics'. It seemed plenty scientific at the time, at least. Don't you want to be on the side that, when it's a question of what's a person and what's an object, errs on the side of 'person', just in case?<BR/><BR/>It seems to us that you're being ageist the same way they were being racist back then.<BR/><BR/>We just don't understand it.Logismous Kathairounteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05146359028263232218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10645769553139992262007-06-06T15:22:00.000-04:002007-06-06T15:22:00.000-04:00Marty said:"As for the vocal opponents of abortion...Marty said:<BR/>"As for the vocal opponents of abortion rights, they need to be balanced vocally by those who know the facts."<BR/><BR/>Oh, now I see the light! There are 'opponents of abortion rights' and 'those who know the facts.' I reckin I should do some more book lernin' so I can see that killin' babies is OK, too!<BR/><BR/>But seriously, it is pretty simple when life begins. Fertilization. The 'moment' as you said may last a day for the DNA halves to fuse but by the time you have signs you are pregnant, the egg is fertilized. So equivocating about how long the moment takes does nothing but distract from the main issue: what is it? <BR/><BR/>I reject the idea that an acorn is not an oak. What is true is that an acorn is not a full mature oak tree, but it is still an oak. The essential oakiness (information in the cells, or the blueprint for that oak) exists inside the acorn. Nothing else on earth will grow an oak except an acorn, because nothing else is an oak. No other substance on earth will grow a human being except a fertilized human egg.<BR/><BR/>It must be hard for you to live with the cognitive dissonance of knowing that it is a growing human being. You know it is a growing human being or else you wouldn't try to kill it. You wouldn't have to kill it if it weren't alive. So we are dealing with living, growing, human beings in the earliest stages. Pointing out how the physical egg undergoes change, does not do anything to show that the egg is not human or cannot have a soul. If it is an innocent human you don't have a right to kill it.<BR/><BR/>Twinning is not a problem for people who believe in souls. The body is simply the vessel which the soul possesses. If the egg will divide to create two seperate bodies, then two souls are given because God knew the egg would split.<BR/><BR/>Citing cases where the body naturally rejects a fertilized egg does nothing to lend a moral capacity to humans to go into the womb and stop the process. God gives life, and God takes it away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19047079322321096212007-06-06T14:33:00.000-04:002007-06-06T14:33:00.000-04:00Excellent post. As for the vocal opponents of abor...Excellent post. <BR/><BR/>As for the vocal opponents of abortion rights, they need to be balanced vocally by those who know the facts. <BR/><BR/>Here is a copy of the letter to the editor I had published in The Buffalo News on Memorial Day:<BR/><BR/>What exactly is this ‘moment of conception?’<BR/><BR/>We hear a lot about the “moment of conception” when discussing abortion rights. Religious opponents believe this is the instant when a full, ensouled human being comes into existence. <BR/>But when is this moment? When the sperm enters the egg? No, that’s an unfertilized egg with a sperm inside it. No guarantees. How about during mitosis, when the two halves of DNA fuse together? That happens in minute increments over a full day—hardly a moment. No bell rings signaling a miracle like during Catholic transubstantiation. <BR/>Has this “moment” passed when the cell divides to two, or four, or a hundred? If you say yes, remember that twinning often takes place well after the stem cells become uncountable. Which lucky twin gets the soul? Don’t forget that upwards of half of these “full human beings” are naturally flushed out in the first 20 weeks, even after implanting in the uterine wall. “Chromosomal abnormalities” are the cause in 50 percent of these, suggesting mitosis—that is, conception—may not have completed correctly or at all (see “guarantee” above). <BR/>The fact is that there simply is no neatly packaged “moment of conception.” Stop saying it.<BR/><BR/>Of course I got some opposing replies, but they were both silly. One claimed that the moment of conception was when a couple decides to have a baby. That is, when the idea was conceived. The other tried desperately to deconstruct my position, assuming I didn't think of the first meeting of the sex cells and declaring in the end that the moment of conception is when the sperm enters the egg--the very moment my letter pointed out to NOT be the moment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73775021177894014252007-06-06T11:03:00.000-04:002007-06-06T11:03:00.000-04:00Michael saysIf those innocent human beings are for...Michael says<BR/><I>If those <B>innocent human beings are foreign invaders</B>, then it is justified to kill them. This has been a longstanding ethical principle.</I><BR/><BR/>Oxymoron alert!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52821193763349532122007-06-06T02:05:00.000-04:002007-06-06T02:05:00.000-04:00As Greg Koukl says so well, "If it is not an innoc...<I>As Greg Koukl says so well, "If it is not an innocent human being, no justification is necessary. If it is an innocent human being, no justification is adequate."</I><BR/>Actually, there is <I> one </I> justification for killing innocent human beings.<BR/><BR/>If those innocent human beings are foreign invaders, then it is justified to kill them. This has been a longstanding ethical principle.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63456561687020947312007-06-05T20:24:00.000-04:002007-06-05T20:24:00.000-04:00They aren’t concerned with the high school student...<I>They aren’t concerned with the high school students who are getting their limbs blown off in Iraq</I><BR/><BR/>Valerie, how does being pro-life equal "not being concerned about students whose limbs are being blown off"? I hear this non-sequitir all the time and quite frankly it doesn't make any more sense through repetition.<BR/><BR/>I do not see how your argument for abortion can be enough to convince anyone that this issue is settled. It's weak, although I feel better about giving up eating eggs.<BR/><BR/>BTW, how's your personhood emerging? When did you first become aware that you were a person? Note that this isn't a theistic debate as many atheists are pro-life based on scientific evidence.<BR/>Regards.Jim Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12456957270007304493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21035501093590422592007-06-05T17:08:00.000-04:002007-06-05T17:08:00.000-04:00Speedwell,HUH? Liquor store in your uterus? I was ...Speedwell,<BR/>HUH? Liquor store in your uterus? <BR/><BR/>I was offering much deserved scoff to the idea that 'it's my body, I'll do what I want' line of reasoning which would be plain silly if it weren't intentionally blinded to the real baby growing in the womb.<BR/><BR/>Do you accept that your rights end where another's begin? If so, then the moral basis you use to define what we can and can't do with our bodies, depends on how it affects others (well being, bodies, property, etc.). Or are you an Anarchist?<BR/><BR/>So the real question is what is IT? Is it another person? It is living tissue growing into a human being. Can you prove that a pre born human is not yet a person? Are person and being seperate? If you cannot demonstrate that the fetus is a non-person, I cannot support the willful killing of it. <BR/><BR/>As Greg Koukl says so well, "If it is not an innocent human being, no justification is necessary. If it is an innocent human being, no justification is adequate."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82913054931966720812007-06-05T16:34:00.000-04:002007-06-05T16:34:00.000-04:00Kyle, if there was a liquor store that was doing b...Kyle, if there was a liquor store that was doing business out of my uterus, I think I would be entitled to rob it, manage it, or evict it if I chose. Hmmm, etc.Speedwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03183564986255249281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89288168232782540212007-06-05T12:38:00.000-04:002007-06-05T12:38:00.000-04:00Here's an idea for ya! Rob a liquor store and whe...Here's an idea for ya! Rob a liquor store and when the cops come to gitcha, hold up a sign 'hands off my body'. I mean we all have a right to our own bodies right? Or do those rights end where others begin. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67131082405815135682007-06-05T10:37:00.000-04:002007-06-05T10:37:00.000-04:00Within a community of faith, the truth can be hono...Within a community of faith, the truth can be honored. In other words, it should be acknowledged if one does not, say, have a witness in their heart for unborn children, or hungry children in Africa or even wartime victims. But our small level of faith should not be exemplified as a virtue (righteous indignation) and used as a stone to throw at those who do not share the same level of faith.<BR/><BR/>Anon 1035Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80882590398155944082007-06-05T10:05:00.000-04:002007-06-05T10:05:00.000-04:00Hi Val, Listen, as human being, I am very concern...Hi Val, Listen, as human being, I am very concerned about these trajedies. I hate this war. I hate suffering where ever it is especially when it is of children.<BR/>Abortion is something that I disagree with, however I think that a society where a woman beleives that abrtion is her only hope, has gone terribly wrong. <BR/>I understand that it is a womans body and it is thir choice. I just don't agrre that it is the right choice. The people that I know who have had abortions regreted it and now have a lot of emotional pain from the experience. They went on to have children the first chance they could. The nativity story is important in this issue. Perhaps because of the regrets and emotional problems people have after an abortion, these letter writers ascribe to the beleif that abortion is bad for the well being of people and that people would be better off with out abortion andsinse society is made up of people, then society would be better off with out abortion. Also society would be better off with out war and poverty and sickness and hunger.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33022194878603567942007-06-05T09:52:00.000-04:002007-06-05T09:52:00.000-04:00Perceiving humanhood in the seed of life is a matt...Perceiving humanhood in the seed of life is a matter of faith - Loving the unseen and understanding the potential and the value of small beginnings is what faith is about. We do not have to believe or have faith - we can objectify what is not understood or valued by us. We can justify doing away with what is inconvenient and do as we please with life. We are absolutely under no obligation to live by faith, but we ought not complain when the practices of devaluation surface in our own personal lives in ways we did not anticipate.<BR/><BR/>Anon 1035Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com