Drilling in Alaska

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

So, you are going on record that the soul doesn't exist? Care to tell that to the evangelicals. Care to say that we are just flesh and blood without god/jesus.

Yes!!! That's my point!! Stop with the theology on this issue. Haven't you read my posts?

As far as how the body relates to the soul. The Greeks understood the human person as an "incarnate soul," meaning, the soul has prior existence, and the soul is the main thing in our humannness. The Hebrews understood the human person as an "animated body," meaning the body is the main thing, along with the spirit, from God, that causes the body to be something. The point is, the body is the heart and center of our faith, even as we look forward not to the immortality of the soul, but the resurrection of the flesh.

If we have an existence prior to or apart from the body, it is only in this sense, that we are in the mind, thoughts, plans of God.

Regardless, of the theology...all realized that at a certain point that thing in the womb wasn't a human.

I think i wasnt' clear. Let's stop with the theology on all issues.

I seem to recall that a certain prez put jesus as the greatest philosopher/thinker...can't exactly recall the term.

Are you gonna go against tex when he says we are a christian nation founded on christian principles.

If you want to take religion out of the equation fine....say goodbye to the republican party.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Galations is talking about spiritual matters. Not abortion matters.

Galatians: YEs, i do. And, your failure to rebutt tells me i'm as right as you.

I think there is another party involved in abortion, so I think my example works.

Yep, i guess the other party isn't really involved now is she.

It either is or it isn't. Start a thread on capital punishment if you want

Kill: I love it when you guys trot that out..but, then are for capital punishment and wars. I guess killing then is ok.

Galatians: Exaclty..i never said abortion. but, it speaks directly as to what makes you human. Without jesus..you aren't. So, if the pre born doesn't have that relation...it isn't human.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

Are you really making the claim that scientists don't know when conception takes place? It takes place when the sperm enters the oocyte. The two pronuclei migrate to approximately the center and make a haploid nucleus. Before fertilization, you have a haploid sperm gamete that cannot form a human and a haploid oocyte that connot become a human. Only a fertilized, diploid oocyte can become human.

Lets keep it scientific and secular. Human life begins at conception in the vast vast majority of cases. Since human life is valued by all, why make a distinction between a developing human inside a woman and any other human being? We know what will happen to the fertilized egg - all things being equal, it will develop along a continuum and eventually become and adult human that will also age and die. We should do everything we can to protect it, just as we protect humans at every other stage of life.

Rand,

No. Sorry, but you aren't exactly on the money.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

[HowardRoark]

Galatians: Exaclty..i never said abortion. but, it speaks directly as to what makes you human. Without jesus..you aren't. So, if the pre born doesn't have that relation...it isn't human.

It's a spiritual thing Ty. Give it up, you're pissing "Freak Out" off.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Galatians has been mentioned in more than one thread now...is this the christian encourager forum?

It was first mentioned by the atheist - and referenced completely of of context. Then it was mentioned again by the same guy, claiming his 'point' hadn't been rebutted. It has been rebutted twice. Let's see if he tries again. We know that he is never wrong in his own mind, so I suspect it will be brought up again.

Show me where i've said i'm an atheist.

Rebutted: Show me where.

[HowardRoark]

Regardless, of the theology...all realized that at a certain point that thing in the womb wasn't a human.

I think i wasnt' clear. Let's stop with the theology on all issues.

I seem to recall that a certain prez put jesus as the greatest philosopher/thinker...can't exactly recall the term.

Are you gonna go against tex when he says we are a christian nation founded on christian principles.

If you want to take religion out of the equation fine....say goodbye to the republican party.

Why do always put up strawmen when talking to me? Prez Bush, Tex....talk to them. I have stated I am for seperation of church and state. I have now put up two posts saying abortion is not a theological issue.

What I do say though is that eveything is a theological issue if you are honest.

[mraynrand]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

Are you really making the claim that scientists don't know when conception takes place? It takes place when the sperm enters the oocyte. The two pronuclei migrate to approximately the center and make a haploid nucleus. Before fertilization, you have a haploid sperm gamete that cannot form a human and a haploid oocyte that connot become a human. Only a fertilized, diploid oocyte can become human.

Lets keep it scientific and secular. Human life begins at conception in the vast vast majority of cases. Since human life is valued by all, why make a distinction between a developing human inside a woman and any other human being? We know what will happen to the fertilized egg - all things being equal, it will develop along a continuum and eventually become and adult human that will also age and die. We should do everything we can to protect it, just as we protect humans at every other stage of life.

Rand,

No. Sorry, but you aren't exactly on the money.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

So what? I can claim that life begins at the blastual or morula stage - or even at epiboly rather than gastrulation - or at the specification of various germs layers - each of these event occur on a smooth developmental continuum so It's a pointless debate to try to establish some defined point where a fertilized egg acheives 'humaness.'

So is your trying to make a claim about individuals and twinning - So what? In fact, your position essentially says we should be EVEN MORE CAREFUL because there is the chance for TWO INDIVIDUALS instead of just one. Neither of these twins can form without fertilization. (I'm glad that you refer to them as INDIVIDUALS at the time of twinning. Eventually, I am confident that people will realize they are human at conception).

[mraynrand]

Galatians has been mentioned in more than one thread now...is this the christian encourager forum?

It was first mentioned by the atheist - and referenced completely of of context. Then it was mentioned again by the same guy, claiming his 'point' hadn't been rebutted. It has been rebutted twice. Let's see if he tries again. We know that he is never wrong in his own mind, so I suspect it will be brought up again.

Show me where i've said i'm an atheist.

Rebutted: Show me where.

Probably in Galatians somewhere.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

Are you really making the claim that scientists don't know when conception takes place? It takes place when the sperm enters the oocyte. The two pronuclei migrate to approximately the center and make a haploid nucleus. Before fertilization, you have a haploid sperm gamete that cannot form a human and a haploid oocyte that connot become a human. Only a fertilized, diploid oocyte can become human.

Lets keep it scientific and secular. Human life begins at conception in the vast vast majority of cases. Since human life is valued by all, why make a distinction between a developing human inside a woman and any other human being? We know what will happen to the fertilized egg - all things being equal, it will develop along a continuum and eventually become and adult human that will also age and die. We should do everything we can to protect it, just as we protect humans at every other stage of life.

Rand,

No. Sorry, but you aren't exactly on the money.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

So what? I can claim that life begins at the blastual or morula stage - or even at epiboly rather than gastrulation - or at the specification of various germs layers - each of these event occur on a smooth developmental continuum so It's a pointless debate to try to establish some defined point where a fertilized egg acheives 'humaness.'

So is your trying to make a claim about individuals and twinning - So what? In fact, your position essentially says we should be EVEN MORE CAREFUL because there is the chance for TWO INDIVIDUALS instead of just one. Neither of these twins can form without fertilization. (I'm glad that you refer to them as INDIVIDUALS at the time of twinning. Eventually, I am confident that people will realize they are human at conception).

So what: You said conception..and that we all know when it begins. When shown to be wrong...you counter with so what..and the continuum.

Fine, continuum. Just dismiss the Embryological View, Neuro View, and Ecological / Technological view...those don't support your viewpoint..so, the science behind them is...well, not applicable.

When did i say individual...nice reframing.

Twinning: I guess that is one way of looking at it. The other would be that that point at which the zygote is an ontological individual and can no longer become two individuals.

Conception: I doubt it. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern.

[mraynrand]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

Are you really making the claim that scientists don't know when conception takes place? It takes place when the sperm enters the oocyte. The two pronuclei migrate to approximately the center and make a haploid nucleus. Before fertilization, you have a haploid sperm gamete that cannot form a human and a haploid oocyte that connot become a human. Only a fertilized, diploid oocyte can become human.

Lets keep it scientific and secular. Human life begins at conception in the vast vast majority of cases. Since human life is valued by all, why make a distinction between a developing human inside a woman and any other human being? We know what will happen to the fertilized egg - all things being equal, it will develop along a continuum and eventually become and adult human that will also age and die. We should do everything we can to protect it, just as we protect humans at every other stage of life.

Rand,

No. Sorry, but you aren't exactly on the money.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

So what? I can claim that life begins at the blastual or morula stage - or even at epiboly rather than gastrulation - or at the specification of various germs layers - each of these event occur on a smooth developmental continuum so It's a pointless debate to try to establish some defined point where a fertilized egg acheives 'humaness.'

So is your trying to make a claim about individuals and twinning - So what? In fact, your position essentially says we should be EVEN MORE CAREFUL because there is the chance for TWO INDIVIDUALS instead of just one. Neither of these twins can form without fertilization. (I'm glad that you refer to them as INDIVIDUALS at the time of twinning. Eventually, I am confident that people will realize they are human at conception).

So what: You said conception..and that we all know when it begins. When shown to be wrong...you counter with so what..and the continuum.

Fine, continuum. Just dismiss the Embryological View, Neuro View, and Ecological / Technological view...those don't support your viewpoint..so, the science behind them is...well, not applicable.

When did i say individual...nice reframing.

Twinning: I guess that is one way of looking at it. The other would be that that point at which the zygote is an ontological individual and can no longer become two individuals.

Conception: I doubt it. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern.

That's total gibberish. Try again. You make zero sense. Does human life begin at conception or not? Do we not know when conception is? Conception is Fertilization - joining of gametes.

[texaspackerbacker]

Fascinating discussion ........ NOT!

I honestly couldn't care less about the scientific beginning of life. I'm not even all that interested in the theological aspect of it. Other than Thou Shalt Not Kill, the Bible really doesn't say anything definitive on the subject of abortion. It is a POLITICAL issue, and not really a very significant one at that.

I am against abortion for the same reason I'm for gun rights--even though I don't own a gun. It is out of solidarity with those on our side of the spectrum who do see these as vital issues.

I have detailed many times what I consider the issues MOST IMPORTANT to America, and abortion is pretty far down the list.

And then, of course, you have the little bit of irony that if you assume the large percentage of abortions occurred with liberal parents, and that family values being what they are, the large majority of aborted fetuses would have grown up to be liberals, then, with all the huge number of abortions since Roe v. Wade, enough would probably have been old enough to vote to change the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 elections--which undoubtedly would have resulted in horrendous acts of terror--repeats of 9/11 that would not only have meant massive human losses, but terrible economic disasters that easily could have brought this country down from its status of dominance.

Does that mean I'm FOR abortion? Hell No. I'm just citing the silver lining in the cloud.

[HowardRoark]

I have detailed many times what I consider the issues MOST IMPORTANT to America, and abortion is pretty far down the list.

And then, of course, you have the little bit of irony that if you assume the large percentage of abortions occurred with liberal parents, and that family values being what they are, the large majority of aborted fetuses would have grown up to be liberals, then, with all the huge number of abortions since Roe v. Wade, enough would probably have been old enough to vote to change the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 elections--which undoubtedly would have resulted in horrendous acts of terror--repeats of 9/11 that would not only have meant massive human losses, but terrible economic disasters that easily could have brought this country down from its status of dominance.

It's just one of many issues....I would agree. Although some would argue that abortion is a horrendous act of terror.

[mraynrand]

Boy that's hard to look at - I wasn't going to cross that line. But that's the reality of it.


OK, Ty. I can't make sense of what you write. You're squirming all over the place, like a 4 month old baby, trying to stretch or suck it's thumb inside the womb. I have a direct question. See if you can give a direct answer.

WHEN, according to YOU does a developing homo sapien achieve 'human' status? In other words, at what point would you say "After _____ developmental time point, the developing embryo is Human, and should be protected from killing by law." If you can answer, please answer with specificity as to what the criteria are for this transition from embryo (that may be destroyed) to Human, (which should be protected by law). I hope it's not above your pay grade.

[LL2]

I have detailed many times what I consider the issues MOST IMPORTANT to America, and abortion is pretty far down the list.

And then, of course, you have the little bit of irony that if you assume the large percentage of abortions occurred with liberal parents, and that family values being what they are, the large majority of aborted fetuses would have grown up to be liberals, then, with all the huge number of abortions since Roe v. Wade, enough would probably have been old enough to vote to change the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 elections--which undoubtedly would have resulted in horrendous acts of terror--repeats of 9/11 that would not only have meant massive human losses, but terrible economic disasters that easily could have brought this country down from its status of dominance.

It's hard for me why people support abortion when this is the result of it.

I applaud Sarah Palin for having her son Trig when she knew he was going to be born with Down Syndrom. Most on the pro-choice side of the debate would say an abortion is ok. You know what. The Nazi's said it was ok to get rid of those that had disabilities too.

It's just one of many issues....I would agree. Although some would argue that abortion is a horrendous act of terror.

[LL2]

Somehow I made the last post look like Howard Roark wrote the section below his name...I must have over typed everything he typed.