More leftist hypocrisy, nicely illustrated

[Greg Jennings]

Imitating me now, are you? The great imitator, satan, taught you well.

Indeed. We bro out regularly. He's a good guy. You should give him a chance

What was that chapter, verse, devil boy, who would not know the difference between the book of Joel, and Billy Joel, where I am required to answer any/all questions, especially from the lost, Christ rejectors, such as yourself?

I wish I could change my name to "Devil boy" lol.

I'm not basing my abortion opinions on a 4000 year old manuscript written by shepherds. Tell me, why is the bible more of an authority than the Quran?
Answer: because you were born to a Jesus loving family in America, instead of a Mohammed loving one in Pakistan. There is no other reason. Your subjectivity is painfully obvious

More imitation. I am honored, but you cannot pull it off, like I can.

However smart you think you are, it's becoming clear that it's far more than your actual intelligence levels based on our exchanges here.

I'm not copying you.....I'm mocking you for your irrelevant comments. Take up your "spin" with Bill O'Reilly

Wow! How long did it take, for you to come up with that "facts are facts" cliche/stumper/debate ender?

At least two days. Because I'm stupid and a teenie bopper :chuckle:

Made up, according to the bible. Of course, you reject the volume of the book as your final authority.

Yes, I reject parts of a book that encourages genocide, says Earth is flat and 6000 years old, and has laws designed for a primitive societal world with 80% fewer people on it.

The fact that you accept all of that undermines your feelings that you are intelligent. Substantially

Facts are facts. You taught us that. We learned that from you.

At least you learned something :thumb:

More satanic "economic" reasons, "Well, inn my opinion"s, for your supporting the slaughter of "little ones," eh Christ rejector?Your great, great grand daddy was a southern black despiser, eh?

No for two reasons.

1. "Little ones" is a term reserved for living human children, not unconscious and unfeeling collections of cells. Science (a much better authority on birth and consciousness than a book written by shepherds) has best determined the point of consciousness to occur at about 22 weeks. The bible never says anything disputing that, and as I showed you earlier God commanded the slaughtering of children and infants in the OT. In short, if you hate pro-choice people because they are killing a "little one", then you're a hypocrite for not holding it against God too

2. Both sides of my family immigrated here in the 20th century. There's no slavery in my background.

That's your best shot?Feeling like I am gipping you out of your blow bops, eh teenie bob? Release yourself...free yourself....have another tantrum, Opie......let go....

Take your seat.

I'm not sure you can pick up on a light-hearted comment. I even put the :chuckle: in there for context. However, as we all know, context is something often lost on fundamentalist Christians.



I noticed something in your post? Did you? You answered none of my questions. I suggest you take that massive, genius brain of yours and learn how to hold a two-way conversation

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yes, it most certainly is.

I don't support any abortion for any reason at any point in any pregnancy.

I'm just trying to figure out why Greg thinks pro-lifers want to "force" a woman to stay pregnant, but he's perfectly ok with "forcing" a woman to stay pregnant at 8 months.

I've told you that. Because an actual objective authority determined that consciousness doesn't occur until 22 weeks. I've told you this three times now. I also told you that I'm my scenario, the pregnant woman isnt "forced" to keep her child unless she knowingly goes 16+ weeks without getting the job done. It's called a deadline. If you're not familiar with them, you should be

Your emotion is not objective. My emotion is not objective. Objectivity is necessary when making decisions

Do not confuse your distaste with my opinion for an unanswered question. That's dishonest

 

[john w]

I'm not basing my abortion opinions on a 4000 year old manuscript written by shepherds. Tell me, why is the bible more of an authority than the Quran?

1.Prove it was written by sheperds.

2. Quite irrelevant. He is on record-the Constitution is not valid-written how long ago, by many slave owners?


3. Prove Washington existed. Seen him? Heard him? Touched him? Smelled him? Examined his remains? All you have, as your "proof," is what historians, who were probably drunk, wrote about him, 200+ years ago, lost one.


See how that works? Sophistry.


While you are at it, prove you exist-written.


You deceiving little punk....Satanic "argument."

4. Mohammed is dead. There is only one person, who went to an altar, was crucified, and lived to tell about it-the Lord Jesus Christ. And that same Lord Jesus Christ, whom you reject, in the future, will not be that harmless babe, lying in the manger, but your judge, as He drop kicks you on a one way trip to hell.


Merry Christmas, Dummy...And remember-Santa/satan Claus loves you, and so does Mohammed, and the Easter Bunny..

 

[musterion]

22 weeks, my personal cutoff

How godlike of you.

 

[Greg Jennings]

It was not a good analogy.
Those puppies (in your analogy) were already born.

It's not perfect because dogs can't get abortions. What they have instead is neutering. That does the same job: eliminating unwanted offspring.

Anyway, why do you think the government should have the right to decide when something inside a woman's body "is a person" or not?

The govt itself doesn't. The scientific community does, however. If they determine that something is a human at a certain point, then it should be subject to human rights. The govt would enforce humans rights laws as they tend to do

Does that not violate her right to privacy?

No. She had 16+ weeks of private time to get the job done. Without a good excuse as to why she couldn't get the abortion in that time, she missed the deadline

 

[Greg Jennings]

Luke 1 KJV

41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 and she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears,the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

You cannot spin this away, craftily dismiss it.

How about Devil Boy takes a shot at it?


Do you really think they had any understanding of when a ball of cells becomes a child 3000 years ago? The didn't even know what cells were until 200 or so years ago.

Even if they did, was there even a word for "fetus" at the time? I doubt that

 

[Greg Jennings]

How godlike of you.

Actually, my determination is based on the objective authority of science. What objective authority did you base your opinion on?

 

[Greg Jennings]

1.Prove it was written by sheperds

Abraham and Moses were shepherds, as was about 90 % of the rural world at the time. I'd suggest a quick religion or history course if you want confirmation

2. Quite irrelevant. He is on record-the Constitution is not valid-written how long ago, by many slave owners?

Not clear what you're asking for here

3. Prove Washington existed. Seen him? Heard him? Touched him? Smelled him? Examined his remains? All you have, as your "proof," is what historians, who were probably drunk, wrote about him, 200+ years ago, lost one.

We have all sorts of papers about Washington's estates and the slaves he owned. We have corroboration of his existence from tens of not hundreds of firsthand sources.

That being said, I absolutely think Jesus existed too. They might've found his tomb recently. You missed the point. The only reason you prefer Christianity to Islam or any other religion is that you were born into it. You have no actual basis as to why Christianity is correct and Islam isn't. Just your opinion

See how that works? Sophistry.

Once again, your self-perceived level of intelligence let's you down

While you are at it, prove you exist-written.

What are your thoughts on forensics? Can a crime be solved if no one was there to witness it?

There's a pretty obvious answer here

You deceiving little punk....Satanic "argument."

We'll chock that up as another dodge by you. Shocking

4. Mohammed is dead. There is only one person, who went to an altar, was crucified, and lived to tell about it-the Lord Jesus Christ. And that same Lord Jesus Christ, whom you reject, in the future, will not be that harmless babe, lying in the manger, but your judge, as He drop kicks you on a one way trip to hell.

And according to Islam, Jesus never died but was sucked up to Paradise while a dummy body was left on the cross.

Can you prove one account over the other?

Merry Christmas, Dummy...And remember-Santa/satan Claus loves you, and so does Mohammed, and the Easter Bunny..

You keep dodging. How can you prove that Christianity is correct? Well educated Muslims all over the world think it's laughable/blasphemous to believe that a man could be both God and God's son. They say that doesn't make any sense. Why is your way better than theirs?

Merry Christmas to you also

 

[glassjester]

The govt itself doesn't. The scientific community does, however. If they determine that something is a human at a certain point, then it should be subject to human rights.

What was "it" the day before "it became" a human?

 

[Greg Jennings]

What was "it" the day before "it became" a human?

Officially, a human fetus.

Of course, not every human gets conscious at 22 weeks exactly. Some are probably ready a few days earlier, as some take longer. And I'm willing to bend a couple weeks there if given convincing evidence that it's necessary.

But even if the fetus became conscious a day or two before the abortion, it's consciousness is on the level of a fish at that point. It's not nothing, but it's also not like killing an actual human who can think and feel and fear for their lives

 

[glassjester]

it's consciousness is on the level of a fish at that point. It's not nothing, but it's also not like killing an actual human who can think and feel and fear for their lives

What kind of animal is my level of consciousness equivalent to, while I'm asleep?
Can you kill me then?

 

[Greg Jennings]

What kind of animal is my level of consciousness equivalent to, while I'm asleep?
Can you kill me then?

That's a different kind of consciousness. Ants are alive and awake, but you can hardly consider them to be conscious beings. They aren't aware of much except what their instincts tell them: build, eat, rest, repeat.

You, on the other hand, are plenty alive and kicking while you sleep. You're likely dreaming about doing various things. A fetal mind isn't doing things like that until consciousness and feeling and memory of experience kick in

 

[glassjester]

That's a different kind of consciousness. You're plenty alive and kicking while you sleep. You're likely dreaming about doing various things. A fetal mind isn't doing things like that

Oh ok. So you'd have to wait until I'm not dreaming at all, and then it's alright to kill me.

 

[Greg Jennings]

What kind of animal is my level of consciousness equivalent to, while I'm asleep?
Can you kill me then?

I don't think you get it: being awake or asleep is irrelevant to the kind of consciousness we're talking about. There are two different definitions, and you are using the wrong one.

I'm talking about the moment in life that an organism becomes self aware. That is consciousness. Whether you sleep or not after that point means nothing. You are conscious, and you don't lose that once you got it (unless you have a bad disease or something)

 

[Greg Jennings]

Oh ok. So you'd have to wait until I'm not dreaming at all, and then it's alright to kill me.

Are you saying that while you're sleeping, you're not aware that you are alive?

If I shook you you would wake, which would be an easy indicator of you were a conscious thinking organism or not

 

[glassjester]

Are you saying that while you're sleeping, you're not aware that you are alive?

If I shook you you would wake, which would be an easy indicator of you were a conscious thinking organism or not

In that case, humans don't become self-aware until pretty long after birth.

Newborns aren't self-aware. Should it be legal to kill them?
If self-awareness is your standard, then the answer is yes.
If your answer is "no," then self-awareness has nothing to do with it.

And yes, by the way, I am saying that I am not self-aware at all , while in a dreamless sleep.
Why can't you kill me while I sleep?

 

[glassjester]

Are you saying that while you're sleeping, you're not aware that you are alive?

Exactly. And neither are you. And neither is anyone else.

If I shook you you would wake, which would be an easy indicator of you were a conscious thinking organism or not

If you woke me up, then I wouldn't be sleeping anymore. :doh:


While I slept, I was not a conscious organism. Then later, I woke up.
An unborn child does the same.

If it's the potential to become conscious that grants a sleeping man the right to live, then unborn children deserve that same right.

 

[Greg Jennings]

In that case, humans don't become self-aware until pretty long after birth.

Newborns aren't self-aware. Should it be legal to kill them?
If self-awareness is your standard, then the answer is yes.
If your answer is "no," then self-awareness has nothing to do with it.

You're correct, many have argued that they aren't conscious at a human level until a few years of age. However at birth, they are are a very advanced organism. I'm not sure of what animal to compare them to, but I'd guess along the lines of a pig (smarter than almost everything, surprisingly)
They develop amazingly rapidly.

I shouldn't have used "self-aware." Only a handful of creatures are actually self-aware. What I mean is that they feel pain, have emotions, show cognitive behaviors, and so on. Self aware implies they can look in the mirror and know that it's themselves and not another baby, and that's not really relevant.

And yes, by the way, I am saying that I am not self-aware at all , while in a dreamless sleep.
Why can't you kill me while I sleep?

A) there isn't really such thing as dreamless sleep in a non-vegetative state. You just don't remember the vast majority of your dreams.
B) We could take a scan of your brain while you were sleeping, and your neurons would be lighting up like Christmas lights. To put that in context, many lower animals don't really sleep. They just keep on going with little brain activity, maybe stopping for a breather.

However, they are clearly not conscious, though they never sleep. They are awake, but little is actually going on up there, and they have no ability to feel emotion, pain, and so on.

Does that make sense? It's not about being awake. It's about having the capability to feel, fear, be happy or sad, and other qualities associated with high cognitive ability

 

[Greg Jennings]

If it's the potential to become conscious that grants a sleeping man the right to live, then unborn children deserve that same right.

No. The sleeping man can be conscious now. Just wake him up.


A fetus prior to 22 weeks is not feeling. It does not react to any stimulus except to contract reflexively from any touch, meaning that it also cannot feel pain, cold, or heat. That's not yet alive in the same sense that you are.
If the fetus is allowed to continue to develop, it may eventually come to term and become human. Or it might self-abort, or die during conception, or be born too weak to live for long. We don't know what would happen to the fetus.

By your standard here, because every single individual sperm has the potential to become a fully conscious human given enough time, it would be just as bad as several thousand abortions every time any man - can't get around saying it really sorry - ejaculated partner-free.

 

[glassjester]

No. The sleeping man can be conscious now. Just wake him up.

Then he's not a sleeping man.

If you put a gun to a sleeping man's head, and pull the trigger, you did not just kill a conscious being. You killed an unconscious being. You killed a potentially conscious being. Why is that wrong to do?

A fetus prior to 22 weeks is not feeling. It does not react to any stimulus except to contract reflexively from any touch, meaning that it also cannot feel pain, cold, or heat. That's not yet alive in the same sense that you are.

But it's still alive.
A newborn is not alive in the same sense I am, either.
I can plan, hope, make moral choices. A newborn can't.
Why's it wrong to kill a newborn?

Conversely, a chicken can feel pain, heat, cold, and reacts to all sorts of stimuli. Yet it's morally licit to kill a chicken. So "feeling pain" cannot be your standard. What is?

If the fetus is allowed to continue to develop, it may eventually come to term and become human.

The fetus is already a completely individual human organism.
It's just at an early stage of its human development.

Or it might self-abort, or die during conception, or be born too weak to live for long. We don't know what would happen to the fetus.

I might be hit by a truck tomorrow. Should you kill me today?

every single individual sperm has the potential to become a fully conscious human given enough time

No it doesn't.
You could wait a million years. A single sperm will never, ever become a fully conscious human being.

Meanwhile, a zygote will.


Also, Happy Christmas Eve to you! :wave: