More leftist hypocrisy, nicely illustrated

[JudgeRightly]

a functioning brain for example. But since you don't have one yourself i can see how you would not know this.

How about a nucleus with all the instructions for a brain?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[glorydaz]

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)

The brain is forming in the first trimester. No one can say when the brain becomes "self-aware". Even an educated guess is still a guess.

 

[glorydaz]

That's nice but I asked you what makes this a person.

Well, the fact that it will one day pop out as a person. It pops out as a person, because it's a person. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

Just as alive as the blood the doctor drew to check my cholesterol level.

:rotfl:

 

[Right Divider]

you obviously don't see. The things that qualify as life for a human being are absent at conception and that is a simple fact.

You obviously don't see and don't know about English and punctuation.

Every single human that has ever lived started as a single cell that was conceived from one egg and one sperm, save Adam and Eve (and perhaps Jesus).

 

[glorydaz]

Don't take it personal MrDante, as the vast majority of those that you are debating in this thread voted for Donald Trump who like Hillary Clinton is a very strong supporter of the organization that murderers hundreds of thousands of unborn babies a year:

Planned Parenthood.

Laugh at these supposed Christians' hypocrisy, I do.

ACW's brain did not fully form. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

In case you haven't figured it out yet, no matter how careful or reasonable or thoughtful you try to be, you are wrong

Because emotion and vague passages from a very old book written by primitive people obviously trumps scientific data.

There is no conversation with these people on this subject.

You can blame it on the Book, which is always easier than just accepting responsibility for your own illogical statements. It's a matter of common sense. When a woman is pregnant, a baby will be born unless interfered with. That means the interference is against nature. I thought you folks were all for loving nature. :think:

 

[Town Heretic]

you obviously don't see. The things that qualify as life for a human being are absent at conception and that is a simple fact.

No, that's your bias obscuring your method. Or, it's the assumption you don't know you're making that leads you to the seemingly inevitable conclusion that needn't actually be. To be clearer, it's the things you have decided qualify life for protections and the investment of right that are missing in part or entirely. But that assignment of value is no more or less arbitrary as a founding point than the fellow who ascribes to the position that life begins with breath, or at conception. All we agree upon in our compact is that at some point in our chronological line of being that right exists and that where it exists, absent a fairly horrific violation of the compact (one the unborn cannot perform) we have no right to abrogate that vestment.

In the absence of the irrefutable and prima facie case for vestment, the imposition of any arbitrary value may deprive a being of that which we have no right to deny them. And so, whatever subjective valuation moves us, the only certainty in protecting both the potentially vested and our own standing before the law is to protect life at every moment from conception. Absent that, we may assume a power to which we are not entitled.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You can blame it on the Book, which is always easier than just accepting responsibility for your own illogical statements. It's a matter of common sense. When a woman is pregnant, a baby will be born unless interfered with. That means the interference is against nature. I thought you folks were all for loving nature. :think:

If interference was so against nature, then miscarriages wouldn't be so common.

And if we're talking about before the advent of modern science, they happened all of the time (as they still do in underdeveloped countries)

 

[aCultureWarrior]

ACW's brain did not fully form. :chuckle:

This coming from someone who voted for Donald Trump yet has the audacity to call herself "pro life".

 

[Greg Jennings]

You can blame it on the Book, which is always easier than just accepting responsibility for your own illogical statements. It's a matter of common sense. When a woman is pregnant, a baby will be born unless interfered with. That means the interference is against nature. I thought you folks were all for loving nature. :think:

Insects have brains. Are they human?

Birds have brains. Are they human?

What makes a human a human are certain areas of the brain that are responsible for our abilities for higher learning. A fetus does not possess these regions until a certain point in development

 

[Greg Jennings]

kgov.com/genius

I'm afraid there isn't much in the way of "proof" or "evidence" there

Such as?

A woman cannot be converted into a pillar of salt, and the Earth is not 6-10,000 years old. Speaking of.....

Yes, because God turned her into a pillar of salt for turning around and looking at the city she was told to flee and not look back at.

So it's true and possible simply because a very old book says that this one time it happened? Even thoug everything in nature tells us it's impossible?

The earth is between 6-10 thousand years old.

Of course it is :chuckle:

I can see just fine, thank you.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Then do look closer. I'm not trying to say the Bible is wrong, but it's not inerrant

 

[Greg Jennings]

The brain is forming in the first trimester. No one can say when the brain becomes "self-aware". Even an educated guess is still a guess.

I 100% agree. As far as science can determine, it takes about 22 weeks for a fetus to be considered "human". It's not an absolute certainty, I'm just going by the best objective knowledge that's available

 

[glassjester]

Explain to me the difference between a chicken brain and a human brain? Do you know what a chicken lacks (a lot) that a human does not?

Depends on the stage of development, doesn't it?

My choice of chicken was pretty arbitrary. Really there are lots of animals (pig, dog, chimp, dolphin, etc) that have more intelligence than even a newborn human - yet you wouldn't argue that it's justifiable to kill a newborn human.

Why not?

 

[glassjester]

I 100% agree. As far as science can determine, it takes about 22 weeks for a fetus to be considered "human". It's not an absolute certainty, I'm just going by the best objective knowledge that's available

So the organism was previously not human? And then turned into a human?

"Science" determined this?

You're talking crazy, dude.

 

[glassjester]

What makes a human a human are certain areas of the brain that are responsible for our abilities for higher learning.

Which ones?

 

[Right Divider]

If interference was so against nature, then miscarriages wouldn't be so common.

And if we're talking about before the advent of modern science, they happened all of the time (as they still do in underdeveloped countries)

Corruption is part of "nature" today.

It's that the driving force behind the "creative" power of evolution?

 

[Right Divider]

Insects have brains. Are they human?

Birds have brains. Are they human?

What makes a human a human are certain areas of the brain that are responsible for our abilities for higher learning. A fetus does not possess these regions until a certain point in development

So the little ones are "fair game"?

 

[Right Divider]

I 100% agree. As far as science can determine, it takes about 22 weeks for a fetus to be considered "human". It's not an absolute certainty, I'm just going by the best objective knowledge that's available

Every single person that has every lived (with the exceptions of Adam and Eve and possibly Jesus) where at ONE TIME non-human according to you. Your knowledge is crap.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Depends on the stage of development, doesn't it?

My choice of chicken was pretty arbitrary. Really there are lots of animals (pig, dog, chimp, dolphin, etc) that have more intelligence than even a newborn human - yet you wouldn't argue that it's justifiable to kill a newborn human.

Why not?

Those animals lack those areas of the brain also. Besides apes and cetaceans, humans (even newborns) are really the only animals with brains built for higher learning. And where cetaceans have their brains more emotionally focused, humans have a brain geared more toward problem solving.

In short, you are incorrect. An infant's brain is still more advanced than almost anything you could throw my way, and a human compared to another animal at the sane developmental stage will blow it away. And since I'm very much against the killing of either cetaceans or apes, there is no corner to box me into here