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 (20568)	6/22/2005 3:04:09 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) of 28931

"I believe that abortions ought to be performed earlier rather than later so I find it appropriate to use the words "zygote" or "egg" or "blastocyst"" Using the term "Egg" (which you deny doing, but do constantly) certainly implies that they are not genetically and biologically distinct from the mothers body. This is an obvious attempt to hide the truth from people that abortion kills a Human Being. Actually while you might "prefer" that abortions are done earlier than later you would not, and do not, disallow even partial birth abortion, so you are being at the very least disingenuous by talking about "Eggs". It is btw not misrepresenting you to say that your position is Pro-abortion or that you are an abortion advocate. You certainly support anyone who for any reason at any time decides to kill their un born child and you have defended their so called "right" to do so actively and forcefully. <<<sperm and egg combine to create a new Person>>> "That is incorrect. Human DNA is necessary for person hood but it is not sufficient" Completely arbitrary and it confuses person hood with personality. <<<What about Siamese Twins....and parents? I used these obvious examples to demonstrate that rights do not exist in vacuum. As usual your answers are self contradictory "No...they have the right to freely choose what is in their interest and happiness.......They are obligated to do no harm to them because children are individuals with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is in the Constitution." Which is it; are they free or obliged? You have made my case for me. The parent of a child is no less restricted than the parent of a fetus. Both are free to adopt their child at the earliest possible time but both are obliged to provide adequate life sustaining care until they do. Both the fetus and the child are dependent on the parent for life. Both are dependent individuals, not parasites. "Individuals are not "defined" into existence." Yet that is eggsactly your position. According to you; (a fetus is not "defined" to be a Human being) therefore, according to you; it may be killed. Why do you disparage the science in this matter in favor of a totally arbitrary value judgment? "Those big tears and whimpers from you are just your stupidity talking." LOL! comics.com <<<If you really want to debate this, I suggest you and your lawyer formulate a slightly more forceful opening statement>>> Do you imagine that you are bolstering your position and engendering respect by acting like a child?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next