Copy/paste much? Typical lawyer saying the same crap and getting no where with it..if I say it enough it might stick...You can throw crap at the wall and it will stick also
"With Paul Thompson at QB, Oklahoma will not win the Big 12."
-Lee Corso "is a penis" 9/2/06
We just experienced the 40th anniversary of a ruling about a subject which no one ever changed anyone's mind in an internet forum (well maybe once or twice). I'm illustrating the simple fact that all of these "abortion is murder" type arguments stem from subjective conclusions about a subject which reasonable minds can differ. They are not objectively and absolutely correct. When life begins is a matter for philosophers, not scientists. Therefore, to restrict someone's fundamental liberty interest based upon a subjective conclusion about which reasonable minds can and do differ is not a step most Americans are comfortable with taking.
No matter how many times they re-order their arguments that abortion is murder, the response will always be the same--that their conclusions are based upon subjective assumptions about which reasonable minds can and do differ and nothing about that has changed since page 1 of this thread.
Question: Does God exist? If no, then how was the earth created?Originally Posted by Midtowner:3581648
"With Paul Thompson at QB, Oklahoma will not win the Big 12."
-Lee Corso "is a penis" 9/2/06
If God exists, how does that change anything about your subjective conclusions based upon data upon which reasonable minds can differ?
As to whether God exists, neither you nor I know.
As to what I'm guessing is the forthcoming recitation of Aquinas' ontalogical argument, quantum physics is a really interesting field about which my knowledge is limited to what I've heard on NPR's Science Fridays. That said, some of the theories (which are scientific theories, mind you) state crazy things like something comes from nothing and something becomes nothing all the time. Quantum physics has done to Aquinas what the field of chemistry did to Aristotle's 4 elements.
'cept it'll probably be a long time coming as far as universal understanding or acceptance because in my personal experience, math is hard--especially when you start involving lots of Greek letters.
Last edited by Midtowner; 1/26/2013 at 01:26 PM.
The courts made a decision based on compromise...
There are strong arguments to both sides...
A women's ability to control her body...
A DNA strand from a zygote, embryo, or fetus will definitely be tested as human...
You just stated that scientists play no part in when life begins...so what data are you using for your reasonable mind?Originally Posted by Midtowner:3581652
"With Paul Thompson at QB, Oklahoma will not win the Big 12."
-Lee Corso "is a penis" 9/2/06
The fact that there is no scientific data which says life begins at X time at Y second and upon the occurence of Z. To do so would require the scientist to import his own subjective conclusions which aren't provided by a developing zygote, fertilized egg, embryo or fetus.
If you think it does or someone says they have the answer, I can tell you definitively that they don't understand what science is or what it does.
If there are dividing cells it is alive...
That's not difficult to imagine. Suppose the guy is a clumsy brute and semen enters the vagina in spite of an attempt to use a condom. The female may choose to seek an after morning pill. Do you have any problem with her legally obtaining and using an after morning pill?
Ingles solamente (¡no exepciones!)
So all the scientists who have "proven" evolution, "proven" big bang...etc have also added their own subjective conclusions?Originally Posted by Midtowner:3581655
"With Paul Thompson at QB, Oklahoma will not win the Big 12."
-Lee Corso "is a penis" 9/2/06
All of those are theories, they are not laws. They are not testable, demonstrable or immutable. However, they are extraordinarily likely, supported by literal mountains of data and are constantly being challenged with new data. They are also things which occurred over billions and trillions of years and are not remotely the same as the question as to when life begins, which is about as testable and demonstrable as the theory that exactly 79 angels can dance on the head of a pin (without discounting for the possibility of some of those angels being cherubs, and everyone knows .75 cherubs per angel).
And yes, I'm making fun of all of the folks who think they can objectively prove when life begins.... everyone knows that's when the Prophet Mohammad appears and breathes soul into the zygote 36 minutes after implantation.
Who says the earth is billions/trillions years old? The same scientists that cant tell when life begins? I think you're starting to talk in circles. ..
"With Paul Thompson at QB, Oklahoma will not win the Big 12."
-Lee Corso "is a penis" 9/2/06
Earth is billions of years old. 3.5 billion years. This is observable through dating, geology and what have you.
Kind of like how the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth and if you try to sail from one end of the world to the other, you won't sail off the edge.
I'm only talking circles because I'm having to explain to you what science is and you're apparently not smart enough to grasp it.
Go read books.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.