Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (19994)	5/12/2005 1:00:34 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) of 28931

"I have never referred to the unborn of any species as "garbage"." What you did (inaccurately) say was that; ALL parasites, germs, bacteria, etc. that are within our bodies are a PART of our bodies. We keep wanted parts and we attempt to get rid of unwanted parts. You repeatedly use euphemism to denigrate the true nature of of the unborn Human person; calling them parasites to obscure the horror of taking innocent human lives for the sake of convenience. In fact most of the aborted unborn end up in the garbage, which is where you throw worthless unwanted material. So although you did not use the word garbage it is not out of character with your position to describe the aborted fetus as such. Here are some scientific biological facts for you, A tape worm is a parasite. It is not part of the human body, it is not Human at all, but taking it's life can be justified because it is an unnatural intrusion and is deleterious to the health of the host person. To say a "parasite" is "a PART of our bodies" is a basic and deliberate categorical lie , but one that is necessary when you need to justify the unwarranted killing that you advocate. "The fact that we all come from stardust was introduced in order to support the position that everything has potential BEFORE conception--so that conception as "potential" is simply a red herring" It certainly is; which is why I wondered why you used it in exactly that way. Yet another in the myriad of logical and factual errors you continue to throw up as a smoke screen. In fact one of your following post uses the exact same red herring. <<<I believe that human life begins at conception>>> "And I believe it begins with a martini and garters--so we are only a couple of hours apart on this..." What you believe is incorrect and I can only assume intentionally so. We are not hours apart we are a million miles. Put the booze away and your head might clear. "A New and distinct Human Life begins at conception! That's not a belief, or an opinion, that is a fact! A fact that completely undermines your position. "You seem to think it is a simple matter for a "potential" mother to remove her life support from a "potential" child. As a man you are simply showing an insensitive arrogance." I believe nothing of the sort. Try to get things straight before you respond will you?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next