In all honesty GD I think the length of the post surpassed your threshold of effort required to respond..it may not be my finest hour but I'll accept your surrender :-)

I've never claimed that I am the one choosing to kill babies. Nor am I justified in taking any action against those who do choose to. You are hereby challenged to re-read this thread and show me where I have forced anyone to do anything.

Last I checked you wanted to make law your opinion that women cannot decide for themselves..a law that does not take into regard what an individual believes are their rights as a human. Oddly ironic of you.

Posted at 4:47PM on 10 Jun 08. "Why not institute laws that work. Laws that do not regard the way people feel or the rights they think they are losing"

The facts I stated are facts. The nonsense you outlined is nonsense. At conception we have a living human.

I don't think anyone believes that at conception it fits the definition of human. A zygote lacks human free will. It lacks the ability to perceive its surroundings or manipulate its surroundings. It lacks any perceivable quality that would differentiate it as more ‘human’ than any zygote in any other animal.

I call a baby a baby like a mother might when she learns she is pregnant. As soon as she learns that she is pregnant she will inform her husband. She might say, "We are having a baby".

I think you’ll find you are using the future tense as in “We are going to have a baby” which is an assumption that at the end of a 9 month process they will have a baby.

I call that baby alive because at conception we have a living baby. This is medical fact. You should not argue with it.

Again I don’t think you will find anyone in the medical field that calls a fertilized egg a baby.

I call that baby human because at conception we have a human baby. That is medical fact. You should not argue with it.

Another leap in logic. Funny how you claim to use your own terminology when it suits you but then claim the medical community backs you up.

If you prefer the term zygote then feel free to repeat what I just said and say zygote where I say baby. See if you can agree with yourself then. :)

So at this point you don’t think medical terminology is good enough for you.

The right to life encapsulates the right to nourishment, shelter and protection from termination. I think you summed things up well :)

So you would be all for passing laws that guarantee housing, grantee nourishment and prohibit killing including the death penalty?

Hmmm. That was an exaggerated expression from another discussion that really has no place here. But since you bring it up I suppose I could show you how even you believe that there is a time to kill. As I have said a few times the right decision requires the right judgment. Even you agree that sometimes it is the right thing to do to kill another person. That we do not agree on when life should be protected and when life should be taken is perfectly in line with the fact that we disagree on this topic.

Well it is your stated opinion and last I checked it was your opinion that we were considering as being fit for law. It sounds like you don’t think life should be protected unless that life is under the age of zero. Its not that I disagree with you so much as that you disagree with yourself. You have to be 100% one way or the other. Either all life is sacred and only the creator can decide or it’s up to your fellow humans to decide whether you live or not and thus life is subject to the whims of trends and the tyranny of the majority.
Interesting quote on the subject

If everything that ever lived is dead, and everything that's alive is gonna die, where does the sacred part come in? – George Carlin

We disagree over the legal right to abort babies and we probably disagree over the penalty for adultery. But we agree there is a time to kill and a time to protect. Am I correct?

Is there a time where I would kill to protect? Yes. But then again I’m the same person that’s advocating killing babies. Come on, you’re supposed to be better than some godless provocateur lurking in a forum.

Perhaps you just need some practice. Do you think it is right or wrong to pass judgment?

μη κρινετε ινα μη κριθητε

No personal revelation. Just a small understanding of what He said :)

I don’t think you’ll find any references to abortion in the bible.
The closest I got was this:
15. Cursed be the man who brought the news
To my father, saying,
"A baby boy has been born to you!"
And made him very happy.
16. But let that man be like the cities
Which the LORD overthrew without relenting,
And let him hear an outcry in the morning
And a shout of alarm at noon;
17. Because he did not kill me before birth,
So that my mother would have been my grave,
And her womb ever pregnant

Hopefully Jeremiah was just kidding...he was under duress at this point.

Is what you say right or wrong? Only for you...
What does that mean?

Exactly…

As a side note, on the issue of eugenics. I personally take great pride in marrying an ugly woman of low intelligence just so her DNA will keep on going for another generation.

But seriously, isn't the systemic approach that is modern capitalism denying Gareth's human rights of shelter and sustenance to those who are unable to earn it through their own labour skills, as good as eugenics?

I haven't seen myself forcing anything on anyone. Do you know what "force" means? I think you wish me to retreat to a mountain so you will not have to listen to me.

You wish to force yourself on others or else you wouldn't be talking about the choice a mother makes. A choice that the last I checked , as a male, you inheriently can not make.

Fact 1: At conception you expect us to apply the abstract label of baby to somehow engender feelings of protectionism. I prefer to call it a kumcuat. That’s what we call it in my belief system therefore I am correct.

No, you're not.

I think you'll find that my conclusion based on my kumcuat belief system is just as valid as yours based on yours insomuch as any conclusion based on a belief system, i.e. something you take on faith and not fact, is true.

Fact 2: Yet another label, human, applied to make us identify with it more. I think most folks, if asked to identify the human in a lineup would pick our dear kumcuat last. Frog embryos would probably stand a better chance of being called human than the two celled kumcuat.

If you can't deal with reality then perhaps it is you that needs a vacation to a mountain top. Hmm?

I don't think I can deal with a reality that is defined by you. I think you missed the point of what a construct is.

(My apologies in advance to anyone offended. As mentioned previously I don't think that the label applied makes the decision any easier. I just don't like the lowbrow attempt to play on emotions. It's like old George Bush calling everyone he doesn’t care for a terrorist, as if it makes the decision to kill them easier.)

I do not deny that this is an emotional issue. You don't get to win any points by denying that emotion. You win points if you show me how a baby at conception is not alive and not human.

I like how you continue answer your own question by assuming you know what 'baby' 'alive' and 'human' consist of. I'd like to know what you made you decide to apply these labels to a zygote.

What planet are you on? Does one have to vote to be a person?

Please oh divine Grant tell us what "human rights" consist of that this two celled creature can participate in?
Is it to be guaranteed shelter, food and the right to not be terminated?
Are you willing to extend and champion these rights to all humans? Last I checked, no, because you wish to 'string up adulters'.

You cannot judge? So you don't know if what I say is good or bad then? Right or wrong? So, what was your post here all about again?

Correct, I can not pass judgment on others as you are so willing to do. I personally am glad you are so tight with your God that you know exactly what he thinks about every scenario to the point that you are willing to speak on his behalf. Apparently he personally came to you and told you at what point something becomes a baby and becomes human. Perhaps you should publish and let the rest of the world know that you, GD, have your Gods answers to all the modern questions. You'd sell a million books as I am sure that nobody else has ever presupposed what God thinks before.

Is what you say right or wrong? Only for you...

On the other hand your suggestion that this might be my ego and that a mountain is the best place to practice what I believe is just ridiculous and so far off the mark it's not funny.

What’s wrong with a mountain? Quite a few wise men of lore were quite content on a mountain top. Why do people who get attached to some particular belief always feel the need to force it on everyone else.

Fact 1: At conception you expect us to apply the abstract label of baby to somehow engender feelings of protectionism. I prefer to call it a kumcuat. That’s what we call it in my belief system therefore I am correct.

Fact 2: Yet another label, human, applied to make us identify with it more. I think most folks, if asked to identify the human in a lineup would pick our dear kumcuat last. Frog embryos would probably stand a better chance of being called human than the two celled kumcuat.

(My apologies in advance to anyone offended. As mentioned previously I don't think that the label applied makes the decision any easier. I just don't like the lowbrow attempt to play on emotions. It's like old George Bush calling everyone he doesn’t care for a terrorist, as if it makes the decision to kill them easier.)

Regarding judgment 1: Entitled to the rights of all human beings? Is it going to vote? Is it going to own property? Perhaps the mother is a slave owner because the poor kumcuat is tethered to her. Folks may think that living at home with mom and feeding off of her is a right guaranteed to you at conception but most would believe that you're just a 30+ year old slacker who needs a real job :-)

Regarding judgment 2: Sorry...the lack of logic in your first argument precludes a real response to this one. But I do like how you've proceeded to 'judgments’. Obviously you now defy your own logic because at conception you apparently were deemed not ‘human’ but divine and thus qualified to be an author of judgments.

The fun thing here is that everyone is just arguing semantics.

You should have just remained silent then .. if you believe you have nothing to contribute

Nice of you to quote me saying this was fun and then suggest silence. You missed the 'fun' part i suppose :-)

Perhaps you truely belive your own BS or, as most likely is the case, you just like throwing up outlandish strawn-man statements because you like the attention the enusing flamewar gaurntees. Either way, if you were so certain of your belifs you’d be content on a mountain top someplace rather than trolling here trying to harden them in the flames.

Rather than heaping more scorn on you to feed the beast that is your ego (I mean, come on…what’s with that raised eyebrow? Even if you look past it as some sardonic attempt to set up a ‘ hate me for my ego’ straw-man, meant to garner more attention, you are still left with the impression there is still a massive ego at work)

..where was I..oh yes…rather than feeding the best that is your ego..haha too late for that…I shall instead leave the feeding to others and return back to the silence you recommend.

(reserving the right to chime back in when I can’t resist the fun or if this post is replied to in any fashion or if the wind is blowing in a north to north-easterly fashion)

The fun thing here is that everyone is just arguing semantics. You suggest this construct of 'baby' (which your ego leads you to believe everyone shares in common) that you're applying to the little blob that you can see with a microscope in order to engender some sort of emotional reaction and begin a chain of reasoning that ends in a moral conclusion. You do the same with 'alive' and 'human' as if you could take that blob, throw a shirt on it and send it off to work to make a living. On the other hand, of course, you have those that label that blob as just a group of 'cells', like skin cells. As if this construct makes the decision to remove those 'cells' easier.

The only _fact_ in this scenario is that due to advances in technology we now have a choice what to do with the 'cells' or the 'baby'. Regardless of the construct one applies, it is a decision that most do not take lightly and yet, it is inherently, their decision and not yours. You all can use up your free time to wax poetic on this subject as much as you want but when it comes down to it, it is not your ‘baby’ nor your ‘cells’. If you somehow get your jollies by imposing your belief system on someone else in order to make them feel guilty for their decision or belittle the gravity of the situation by making the choice to proceed appear easy then I believe you have more to worry about than what someone else is up to.