3RU7AL

Indeed physical continuity is the key to why I do not wish to be transported. The pattern (often referred to in episodes centering around transporter technology as a plot device) is only the recipe and when someone is transported they are not the same cake.

One's a soulless automaton.

And I am talking about The Ultimmate Reality, not reality.

Yeah, it is beyond our understanding.

There is no evidence of anything before there earliest event we can detect (or even at the biggining of this event) the event in question is the big bang. Any claim about what existed or happened before the big bang is therefore necessarily an argument from ignorance if indeed before is not a nonsensical idea regarding the big bang.

That was a statement of fact used to show the stupidity of basing personhood on the baby's dependency on the mother.

You took it and used it as if it was an endorsement.

You did so because you've lost the argument and are now resorting to lies.

It's a quote of me from a besting I gave you. Keep lying, and I will keep that hot spotlight on you.

So when you quote someone, credit them. It's supposed to be difficult to tell you're a liar.

Sure I do. But as it doesn't matter, I don't care. Either way, you've lost, and either way, you're an idiot.

Sorry, but this contradicts the cannon of Star Trek. It wasn't merely enough to recover Picard's physical pattern from the transporter records, but his specific life energy (used in a different context than physical energy) had to also be located into the transporter relays in order to be combined. It isn't simply enough to provide the transporter with energy and create physical bodies.

Miscarriages are not automatically crimes. Using your brain will not hurt you.

But it is selfish and stupid to spread your legs, and then kill the baby that develops.

having children is not a punishment.

Nor should it be a death sentence for the child.

No one can help everyone.

I help who I can, and who I think deserve help will be decided by me...

Because miscarriages are often barely detectable and most go unnoticed or unreported.

Then there is no problem with them.

How can they be investigated if the go by unnoticed or unreported?

I did not want to cut the cord, that is just your stupidity misleading you. You claim a baby is not a person as long as it is dependent on the mother for survival. So then your definition of personhood depends on how early technology can make baby survive outside the mother.

The frequency doesn't matter. If as you claim the baby and the mother are one person because they are physically connected, then so are conjoined twins.

PLUS, didn't you say, "Making laws on exceptions is silly"?

I did. Yet you keep trying to do so.

There is no such thing as a "genetically mutated tumor".

The example I gave was of human chimeras, not "a baby".

So it was human? Concession noted. And your chimera came about from a fertilized egg, or what is commonly called a baby. You should be ashamed to lie like this.

Embryos are not citizens.  True Fact.

I beg to differ. Every person conceived here or having citizens as parents is a citizen. Plus who I chose to save is my business, not yours.

Once we deport some foreign criminal back to his country, what happens inside there is not our business.

Why would a miscarriage be automatically a crime?

Confirms my point. Relatively few are due to rape.

32,000 a year is few?

Relative to all births, yes. Making laws on exceptions is silly. You talk as if most births are due to rape. The aren't.

You think the floozy who voluntarily spread her legs should escape the responsibility of birth. You want the scuzzy drug addict to escape the responsibility of addiction. And you want others to pay for it.

I'm saying it is not possible to help all of them.

I merely suggested that current law is not prepared to address every miscarriage.

Why not?

Is it sensible to base personhood on technology?

Arguments are not paintings, they are knives. Tools.

Because you said the baby is not human, AND, it is part of the mother.

The only example you gave was of a baby.

I cannot save everyone. So I take care of my citizens first.

What a people do with their country (and what they discuss with their politicians) is a matter of privacy

Star Trek gets around the existential nightmare by accepting Dualism as true. That is, there is more to people than their physical make-up. In The Lonely Among Us Picard is beamed into space. His physical pattern is lost, but his "energy" pattern is retained. They are able to put the two back together by essentially restoring his physical body from a back-up of transporter logs.

Instead of the revelation here being that you don't understand my faith, you simply take the association as being ridiculous.

Orthodox Christianity understands God as being The Ultimate Reality. That is what we acknowledge as being The One True God.

And it certainly isn't just Orthodox Christians, but that is certainly how we understand God.

But understanding the faith has never gotten in the way of our persecuters before. The first step is usually making us into something deserving of mockery, not worthy of serious consideration.

Wow! Ten pages of replies from atheists trying to prove that they DO exist. Does anyone else appreciate the irony?

You use the ultimate reality as a synonym for god and since gods don't exist your ultimate reality doesn't exist

I am an Orthodox Christian. This is how we understand God.

Not deism.

I reason that to assume something, it cannot be ruled impossible and there must be some inkling of belief.

Lets entertain this claim.  Humans have to take the position of a god to conduct philosophy in respect of natural law via atheism.

Ok, so if I asked you, "If Zeus struck you down with a bolt of lightning, would you die?"  Do you have to believe in Zeus in order to entertain and or respond to this hypothetical?

Of course, because you need to make the assumption of Zeus

Ok, so if I asked you, "If invaders from Mars destroyed every government building on Earth, would you be prepared?"  Do you have to believe in invaders from Mars in order to entertain and or respond to this hypothetical?

Yes.

Lets entertain this claim.  Humans have to take the position of a god to conduct philosophy in respect of natural law via atheism.

Deism can be classified as a subset of theism, not atheism.  If atheists don't exist, naturally the appropriation of atheism is off the mark as an outlook.  

Lol. You can't debate your position, so you begin another thread with my comment cut and taken out of context. Win!

What liberals normally do in response to a principled conservative argument is lie, manufacture quotes, and call conservatives names.

-Ann Coulter

For this particular thread, I would like to stay on this topic.

Not everyone has turned in their quiz.

there were once a group of living cells/zygote/embryo/baby then trough the actions of abortion (insert label here) is no longer alive aka killed.

Ok.

So now you can say God exists.

That is the only point I am making.

The Ultimate Reality is what God means.

Practical implications is something else entirely.

Neither of you can comfess The Ultimate Reality, which is very telling.

You can't admit That Which Is Ultimately Real exists.

though I would pose you this, if population and to some extent poor are the problem to the world as the population grows, wouldn't it make more sense to euthanize the deformed, terminally ill, retarded etc that can only minimally contribute to society, rather than abort a potential productive member of society, perhaps a ground breaking genius

A condom is worth like, one Subway meatball. To many, a clear conscience is priceless.  Poor people can't afford to learn helplessness.

I'm not talking about my claims.

Cann you say The Ultimate Reality exists or what?

You need to be humble because you never say anything new or unique. To recap I accept that some reality exists and I reject that you could possibly know anything about anything which exists outside the observable. Anything that is not a part if the observable physical universe is by definition unobservable and an unobservable thing is an unknowable thing and if a thing is unknowable then you cannot know anything about it. It is ridiculous to think that you can teach anyone anything about something that you don't know.

Because I cannot save everyone, so I save the most innocent, the most defenseless, the most in need.

So what? Did you ask me for justifications for Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, or just perfectly justifiable reasons for going to war?

No Einstein. But you must be invited to surrender before it is possible to refuse to surrender.

Killing, knowingly, wilfully isn't the same as letting nature take it's cource, this is where society has drawn a line in most instances.  Dnr can be used to make decisions for those who can not. 

Neither one is realistic jasper. Everyone cannot be saved

Sure. To save another country. To make a region safer. To uphold the dignity of your country. To right a wrong. Etc.

The allies were not asked to surrender, and as such, could not have refused. This is typical liberal illogic.

It is incorrect. I did not say, "Saving every human being on earth that has already been born is much more realistic than trying to save every unborn embryo." You said it. I would never say anything that stupid.

Actually, Japan extended the war by refusing. 

Thank you. Common sense.

It was Japan at fault, not the US.

Of course not.

Ok, so when you said that it was more realistic to try and save the lives of every human that has already been born, and less realistic to try and save the lives of every embryo that has yet to be born, 

Please show where I said this. You abortion people always get so emotional. I have no clue why you think I said this.

...and you refused to explain why you decided to choose the latter rather than the former, 

I don't have to explain anything to you, especially things I didn't say. I'm sure you have your pro-life caricature in your mind, but please debate me and not him.

Saving every human being on earth that has already been born is much more realistic than trying to save every unborn embryo.

Perhaps, but...

1. I am in no way obligated to prioritize what you think is relialistic.

2. Only what I am able to do is realistic.

the argument that the woman has some kind of special right, or right at all due to dependency when it's inside her vs when it's not,  isn't correct or logical.

except there are D.N.R. laws, she is making a D.N.R. decision for her baby, where are you getting confused?

I'm trying to understand the position you are taking, even though it appears a devil's advocate one, which is fine.  If I understand you correctly....

Life starts at conception and the spark of life is a soul (something like that)

All human life is precious

Because all life is precious, in every instance, everything possible should be done to protect or ensure that life (miscarriage, immigration)

is that about right?  Anything I missed?

Actually, Japan extended the war by refusing. They knew they were defeated, but they decided to fight onn. Which is why we had to nuke them. Any other course of action would have killed many more people.

I'm asking if your justification of this particular event is capricious or based on some identifiable principle.

And I told you. Self defense. Please buy a clue.

Conservatives Side with - Greedy pharmaceutical corporations, overdoses and death and prohibition style criminal

And are against - Personal sovereignty and the right to decide how much suffering is reasonable     

The you say, Outlawing dangerous and or deadly substances has nothing to do with privacy.

So I ask you, Then how are conservatives against Personal sovereignty and the right to decide how much suffering is reasonable?

You can't answer.

You ask, Can't break a deadly addiction? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"

So whose fault is it?

Did you get that I was also mocking his post verbatim?

Or was that lost in my condescension towards him?

you brought up souls, I didn't

Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), also known as no code or allow natural death

You and me and 99.99999% of the human population believe that some life is more precious than others.

some=/=all

Once they are rejected and or deported (regardless of age), nobody cares if they live or die.

you presume to speak for everyone?  awww come on stretch geez.

Here's the way I see it. Theists want god to exist the same way children want the tooth fairy to exist. They know that god doesn't exist, but they suppress the truth. It's because they also know that they are credulous and deserve to know what is real. They know that we cannot avoid death. But these people love their credulity more than their analytical brain. Also, the Bible tells us lies about reality yet they still accept it. So it's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of critical thinking. There is such a thing as an atheist. In my opinion. This is what logic tells us.

Self defense is "protecting your family".

Only sometimes.

So? Did you ask me or ask the US Military? You asked about a specific event.

That's a speculative theory in American policy, and WWII history.  Indeed, the Japanese were willing to fight till the conclusion of the war.  I'd like to discuss the terms of surrender for their political merit when it inevitably comes up again some day but hopefully not as an armchair critic.