Total posts: 4,363
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
As I inquired to your interrogator, Polytheist-Witch, what is the nature of "nature?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Let's analyze your
"...Holy Hospital of Kindness".
* Operating theaters are prayer rooms:
There are roughly 1M practicing doctors in the U.S.https://www.statista.com/topics/1244/physicians/
Of them, 1,044 of them participated in a recent survey. 76% acknowledged belief in God. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/survey-most-doctors-believe-god-afterlife-flna1c9442008
I would say to your claim of a distinction of operating theaters and prayer rooms that they are, right now, without your "Holy Hospital," prayer rooms. Helps to know the facts.
* Instead of professional doctors, nurses, and surgeons, we'll have naturopaths, chiropractors, and acupuncturists.
Your trio of a replacement squad are already on the team of practicing healthcare workers. They may not all be accredited by the AMA, but that is mostly a political, not necessarily just a medical organization. As a general observation, we, the public, certainly don'y make an outcry of that distinction, anyway. Helps to know the facts.
* Instead of drugs we will have holy water.
What constitutes a "drug," and what makes water, even holy water, anything distinctive from a drug? 'Drug' definition: a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body. It seems water fits that description, or did you have something else in mind? Helps to know the facts.
* And of course, we would need to erect a morgue that's larger than the hospital itself.
Hint: Morgues are not permanent body depositories. They have input/output just like the rest of the hospital. Restaurants do, too, by the way, yet they don't find a need to extensively multiply their size just because somebody gets a hair up their arse that they ought to change their procedures. Helps to know the facts.
HKF is a common phrase of yours. You ought to practice it, and this isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
there is always one side in particular that will not look at the facts
Show me the evidence that you have the facts. Don't just tell us:
We don't yet have the technology to prove God:
Who said technology is supposed to prove God? And who said:
You have to believe/have faith:
say the same thing; that the two are synonymous? You, and your pocket mouse? Your credentials, please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Was it "nature" when we believed the universe was geocentric? Was it "nature" when we were enlightened to the "natural" fact that the universe was heliocentric?
What is "nature?"
I don't think we know the full scope of it, yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You present no source of fear to me. Nothing you say has yet offered a challenge to me to which I feel a need to reply directly. Example: I still wait for the effect you said would be accomplished: my banishment from this site. Had you ownership, or moderation rights, that would be something, but you don’t. Nor do you have the ability to coerce my direct response to your taunts to do anything whatsoever. You do not compel, or even frustrate. You’re a tantrum oriented little boy who cannot stand that I exist in your world, and that presents an irritation with which you cannot deal without expressing your unending displeasure; an itch you cannot scratch. Tough shit, my friend, that’s the way of your world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Exactly what is not how evidence works? Evidence is either witnessed as it is being produced, or it is the substance of things not seen directly, but is, none the less, true. There are other elemental factors that produce evidence than sight, alone, but are registered by other senses. The product of faith is one of those senses, and not even just external senses such as the other typical four: hearing, smell, taste and touch, Some have, for example, demonstrated the ability to sense Earth’s magnetic field. Animals other than human have that sense, too, and others, such as sonic echo location, blood flow beneath the surface of flesh, and so on. So, if faith is likewise another internal sense as these examples are, who.are you to say it isn’t so? Sounds like you’re just buying into more limitation.
Created:
Posted in:
It never ceases to amaze me that many Christians will testify to the power of prayer and it’s power to improve their lives, and yet claim that God ceased to talk directly to man at the close of the first century and that we do not receive revelation from God anymore.
Then why do you bother to pray? You’re just feeding the atheist message that prayer has no more effect than positive thinking. Why do you deny that God still reveals truth to man?
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
If you are one of those people with a good life, a lot of money and a healthy lifestyle - consider this:
- Who paid for your public education?
- Who protects you from criminals and invasions?
- Who assures you fair treatment in court?
- Who collected the knowledge needed to create your luxurious life in the 21st century?
- Who is going to help your children when you are gone?
Answer: society.
My father, by his property tax payments, collectively with parents of other children in my neighborhood, paid for my K-12 education. As it happens, I paid for my higher education personally, along with some early help from my father. Society at large: no, they did not.
Regarding public protection, yes, I understand what you're saying, but I have never been victim to such invasion.
The Constitution assures my fair treatment in court, though I have never had to appeal in such a manner for that fairness.
My father collected his knowledge and gave it to me, and I've collected my own knowledge, both in school, but more privately by my own effort to educate myself ever since my formal education concluded. Look, I know what you are trying to sday, and it may be the case for many people. I am one individual who has prepared, and spent considerable amounts doing do, to have it all taken away. My current primary residence was built to my specifications, on my land, and there is no mortgage on either the land or its improvements, so no one will, but by force, take it away. I have food and water storage to sustain for many months; in excess of a couple of tours around the sun, just in case. IF I must leave my home, I am prepared, with appropriate knowledge, to live off the wilderness. I know I am somewhat unique, but I was an eagle scout; I am prepared, and that is not some mantra to recite.
Proper answer to your questions for me [and not society at large: Society? No. Me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Referring to your #4:
I once found a book ripped from its binding, as well as loss of quite a few of its printed pages. It was immediately apparent to me, because I am more than a little familiar with the subject, that it was a cookbook; a book of recipes of meals; grilling, as it happened. I am an accomplished cook and use this medium quite often. So, reading through the recipes, I found one for grilling salmon fillet that, while the salmon was thus on the grill, offered time to make an apple brandy cream sauce. The two elements of the main course were prepared so that each was done at the same time, and turned out to be an excellent meal, worthy of fine restaurant production.
What should I conclude? I had no book title, no publishing information, not even the author's name in order to find the entire book, because this one recipe confirmed to me the author knew their stuff and had delicious recipes. I made quite a few of the other dishes offered in what I had of the book. Do I conclude the book is "fake" because I lack the information I mentioned. No, I don't, because the recipe told a true story of a delicious meal.
Is that is the sense of other types of information, such as contained in the Holy Bible? Is that volume a complete volume? Several centuries ago, some alleged experts in the subject picked and chose from volumes had, and created a "canon" that is not all that was available to be had. Did God decide which books to include? Maybe; maybe not, by inspiration, but it is what it is. So, what do we do with it? How about the same thing as my incomplete cookbook: try it. Apply the principles in it and see if they result in being in a good place for body and soul.
You get the point. It is not going to declare its true value by sitting on the shelf and our doing nothing about it, making claims of either its authenticity, or its worthlessness. You seem to be willing to take that worthless approach, but not all of us agree with you. Better yet, some of us have applied the principles contained in what may be an incomplete book, and they prove their worth, just as my salmon with apple brandy cream sauce.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
I don't know and I also don't know who "we" are.
I highlight this admission because it bears repeating with virtually all your commentary of #21, to wit:
we are dealing with a state of delusion
"We" who? You? or your pocket mouse? If that is your choice to be deluded, that is your choice.
irrefutable evidence that confirms evolution
I agree. Did I not say that creation and evolution are hand-in-hand processes on the same side of the coin?
in reality nothing more than self-centered to the point of delusion.
In reality? Reality, as in the belief we had not so many centuries ago, of geocentrism? That self-centered? And did we not determine, eventually, that geocentrism was a delusion? You're playing your own game, not realizing that you have just become a game piece. Come on, that isn't where or what you are, although, as you admitted,
I don't know and I also don't know who "we" are.
So, start there, with your "I don't know" definition of faith, and start discovery of what it really is. Only then will you begin to understand the delusion of
I would be talking hypothetically since there is no such thing as God.
because, at present, you're no better off than claiming geocentrism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You mistake capability with purpose. It is not in his purpose to make such a bubble, being, or to conceal himself. I contend that God created us with the express purpose to have agency unto ourselves, because he has the same agency, and acts by it with perfection. We do not, yet, but we're on a growing and improving journey, if we choose to do so. of course, some deny it and do not. It is as I asked by the question about God's omni- characteristics, and it compares to our own approach to some things. We ask ourselves the question: Just because we can, does it mean we should? God imposes the same question on himself. He has these omni- characteristics, but he is not compelled to use that with full force unless he wills it; just as we do. As I said, we are on a journey. God, himself, has been on such a journey, and is further along the path than we are. But what does that say of us, and our eventual destination? Think it through; it's not as difficult as you think. Where are we going, by our own choices to succeed, or not. Yes, we make very distinct and critical choices of eternal progression, until... what do you think? And then do we stop progressing, or is God, himself, still in progress, as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Your initial statement is merely information.
The conclusion you offer does not follow, because it places in doubt an allegation that is not in evidence. That the forgeries found at the museum are concluded to be forgeries due to the use of more modern paper and ink than displayed by earlier scrolls and fragments in no way disauthenticates the condition of the earlier scrolls and fragments. Your conclusion is opinion, failing even to achieve an academic status.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Since this is, effectively, a poll seeking to categorize within a sample group, regardless of the overall categories of politics, society, etc., a little background into the proper set-up of a poll, specifically to maximize data and reduce bias, I suggest:
1. No poll should exceed 10 questions. Period. People tend to “glaze over” and will answer anything, not necessarily accurately, just to be done with it.
2. Questions, as a result, cannot seek general, and then specific answers.
3. As such, polls cannot ask for what other proper questions there should be. It’s your subject; you determine the proper questions.
4. Questions cannot attempt to illicit essay-like answers. Yes/no is the best course, usually.
Some issues are exemplified just by looking at the politics category, because the issues repeat in all categories:
1. Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 can all be answered in a single answer to one question; you’re essentially asking for the same repetitive information.
2. Question 6 becomes unnecessary, that is a data point that is effectively answered by the other 7 combined questions.
3. Question 9 can hold as is. It is a good reflective question [the rare exception to yes/no questions See #4 above.
4. Question 10 will not give you a data point; it asks to give your polling effort credentials, admitting that you don’t have them.
One cannot properly gather qualifiable data with essay-response questions. You can easily normalize and quantify yes & no answers to data [numbers] that can then be rated on a scale, thus allowing an easier analysis by a normal curve [bell curve] of data points. You can present, within your question regarding where on a political scale a respondent resides by giving numerical tie to the various political positions, and present them alphabetically to avoid appearance of bias, such as: 1. Authoritarian, 2. Centrist, 3. Communist, 4. Conservative, 5. Fascist, 6. Libertarian, 7. Progressive… etc. That way, it does not even present as a sequential, left-to-right sliding scale.
In the Misc. section, Qs 1 & 2 ought not be separated. You define what is general or specific, not your sample group. Decide. Q3, 4, 5, are like the Q10 of each category; they are not data points.
Rather than one single survey, and to easily pose your max 10 questions, each of your categories ought to properly be separate surveys altogether.
By credential, I am a certified [retired] Six Sigma Black Belt. Statistically, I have expertise. Trust that I know what I’m talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You plan on telling us what you take issue with?
That was perfectly clear. Nothing about the topic describes the God I know exists. The terms "God" and "cannot," let alone associating the first with "solipsism" are not logical constructs. "Cannot" does not apply to God, at all, St. Augustine's own solipsistic syllogism not withstanding.
To your "central tenets" I reply: Why do you think God's alleged three omni... characteristics imply that he must use them to his fullest extent omnichronologically? As I have inquired to others, who never reply, by the way, do you use all the power you possess omnichronologically [all the time]" No, you do not. Why impose that limitation on God? He acts according to the need. If he acted truly omni-whatever, no one would have survived the flood, including Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark. Or not just Sodom & Gomorrah would have been burned to a cinder. Ir just the Egyptians when all the firstborn were slain. He is selective in the use of his power. He could be otherwise, but that would take the third greatest gift after life and the atonement of Christ: free agency. Consider that even the selective death applied in those three situations, those people were punished merely with the end of their mortal lives rather than let them, by their choice, completely and irredeemably obliterate their eternal lives for the poor choice of excessive disobedience. He spared then that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Creation
Why must we assume that it was either creation, or evolution, as if they are different coins of the realm. I believe creation was a definitive process, but that God did not retire after sis days [though I don't buy that it was accomplished in six 24-hour periods, mainly because there was no day/night distinctions until the third "day", according to the Genetic record, but in six, indistinct periods of time that may have varied in their duration "day"-to-day] and go fishing. No, no retirement. Creation continues to this day in the guise of evolution. Therefore, I do not see creation and evolution as separate coins, but as a single coin, and not even that one side is creation, and the other, evolution, but that both are on both sides.
Nobody can prove God doesn't exist:
Nor can anyone prove to another that God exists. That discovery is had individually. The experience can be shared, but the convincing thereof is a personal experience, not collective.
euphemisms for delusion.
Doesn't help to deny anything, due to the above re: proof of God. There was a time we were firm in the belief that the universe orbited Earth. Therefore, belief is not faith, nor the converse. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. How can one, therefore, prove to another what faith has demonstrated as evidence to him? This is an individual's journey, and delusion is the construct of people unwilling to take that journey. In other words, argue for your limitations; they're yours.
We have always ...
And that mirror is the fault of most who deny...
Again, "we" do not collectively acquire the knowledge of God, and our place in his universe. By individual faith, which must exist before the miracle of knowledge, for if knowledge is sought without the individual sacrifice of effort to obtain that knowledge, the miracle is explained away by the simple contention that "we have always..." just as you have demonstrated.
You speak of God as omnipotent, etc. What says that just because he is omni... and add your trailing suffixes, that he must always act as such? Do you use all the power you possess all the time, or do you use just sufficient for the task? Loaded question, and you may ponder the answer.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Free? You're kidding, yeah? Why should I be responsible to help defray the cost of another's healthcare when that person lives a careless lifestyle endangering his well being, and my lifestyle is prudently controlled? He consumes fast food, beer, weed, and whatever else he can stuff in his pie hole. I consume only fresh food, and produce a lot of it myself, avoid smoking, alcohol, and drugs, and don't act like an idiot on a skateboard? His risk; his wallet. Seems fair to me, because nothing is free. It's taxes. Hell, I wonder why I'm still paying for education out of my property taxes at the same rate that someone with school-aged children still in their house when I've already paid for my children's education, in addition to paying those property taxes, a generation ago. Free? That's a laugh.
I believe in personal responsibility, not freeloading.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Skin color's just another identifier.
Yes, it is, but your explanation ignores a simple fact: my tribe may prefer to wear red hats with a fern frond, and yours, a headband with a peacock feather, and mine eats rabbits, skewered over a fire, and yours, wild boar, roasting in a pit on hot stones, covered with banana leaves. All of it says nothing to the possibility that I, too, can sample wearing your tribe's headband, and sample your roasted wild boar, and declare both a worthy alternative to mine that others of my tribe should enjoy. And you can do the same with still a third tribe wearing no hat, but gold rings on wrists, and they eat fried ostrich eggs seasoned with curry.
And no one complains that anyone is usurping another's culture. We're all celebrating our distinctive cultures, and waiting for a fourth to emerge with more differences to embrace.
So, who cares about skin color, again? Why must it be a distinctive identifier at all? It's just a difference to embrace as a biologic variant meaning nothing whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oh, is it reading, now, that has become the measure by which we gage understanding? See, that's the problem: how to measure. And what tools to use for measurement. And assurance that everyone using the tools are using them to best advantage to obtain the most accurate result. There comes a time, my friend, that the measurement tool we use is not as revealing as our ability to assure we use it correctly, repeatably, and reproducibly. Or, are we satisfied, as are so-called climatologists, that we can clean clouds with carbon credits and government grants? Or, for that matter, that heredity, genetics, and genomes are merely detail orientation?
Created:
Posted in:
I think we mostly understand the maturity level of the mind that reverts to scat humor; which is not really very funny at all, though some cannot rise to paranomasic metaphor.
Ode on a Commode: A Toilet Subtlety
There comes more frequently undone,
A mean and cruel and flatted course,
Such bubbling rumbles from the source,
The sphincter terminus of digestion
To interrupt all else and seek refuge
In porcelain; clean and white, refined;
Receptive. Oh, this may be huge!
Explosion splatters just in time.
And then once more into the breach,
Taken once more by soap and bleach,
One is reminded: ingratitude of age
That eat what may, seasoned by sage
Advice, the vice of culinary art:
Old age can never trust a fart.
There comes more frequently undone,
A mean and cruel and flatted course,
Such bubbling rumbles from the source,
The sphincter terminus of digestion
To interrupt all else and seek refuge
In porcelain; clean and white, refined;
Receptive. Oh, this may be huge!
Explosion splatters just in time.
And then once more into the breach,
Taken once more by soap and bleach,
One is reminded: ingratitude of age
That eat what may, seasoned by sage
Advice, the vice of culinary art:
Old age can never trust a fart.
©2014 by fauxlaw
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No, we've had a more-than-rudimentary idea of genetics - although once know by the term hereditary - for thousands of years. Come on, this is not really new science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What? You want me to load your 44 for you? Sorry, that's on you, entirely. You're the one imposing limitations. You do it. All you need is a mirror.
!. Look in mirror
2. Load
3. Lock
4. Shoot [at the mirror]
That was easy, yeah?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Yeah, and that's about as far as any distinctions should be taken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
It's actually a matter of knowing there was a physical structure to DNA in the 19th century [before we even knew what to call it] when a Swiss biochemist began investigating placental tissue in the late 1860s. He called it nuclein [the term deoxyribonucleic acid came later] and had a basic idea of its function, but not yet its form.
Etymology of words is what is needed here. The concept we discuss was was once called heredity. Genetics is a term coined in about 1905, derived from Greek genos, meaning birth.
Four years after, gene was the term applied to the then thought root of what the physical form of genetics took, i.e., a bio-chemical structure of genetic, or hereditary traits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What evidence have you got?
Faith precedes the miracle, not the other way around. If it was that easy, to just be shown, rather than put in the effort to have the evidence yourself, it would already be known to you. My telling is not going to accomplish a bloody thing for you. I've told you how to obtain the evidence. Stop asking and do it yourself. What, you thought it was yours just for asking me? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. As I said, don't ask me. I'm not the source of what you want. Nor is your attitude; that must change, as well. You're like a child that wants candy. Stop it. Grow up. Go to work. I've told you the nature of the work. Do it. Yourself. I will not, and actually cannot given it to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I repeat my #30, and have seen nothing of consequence since
Blah, blah, blah.lf you draw your gun, shoot it, don’t just bore us talking about it
So, you claim to ban me from the site? When is that going to be the pounding from your 44? I'm waiting, but all I see are not even blanks. Just 44 useless, inevitably boring words. Keep pounding. Keep blowing. Your wish balloon is still lacking sufficient hot air to rise.
Created:
Posted in:
A door, when closed is not; it is a wall. When open, it is not, either. It is an opening in the wall, thus, the empty space is not a door. That's solipsism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Is a central tenant a person that rents the apartment in the middle?
Trust a Brit to understand his language better than the typical Yank.
I was once surprised by a Brit driving his Jag who invited me to take a look under his bonnet, and imagine my surprise seeing he wore no hat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Let’s imagine the following:
And there is the primal issue with imagination. Whatever follows is no better than an if/then proposition: it acknowledges only that which is currently not true.
So, what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Sorry about the lack of your 44 mag to have any effect. Must be because I have the smile of Jesus on my face. Make my day, bud. Ban me.
No? Still, here am I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Something to which to look forward. Definitely a bucket list item.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How many times must I repeat:
Ask the source of the inspired, but possibly corrupted words what is the truth.
That means not the author who was inspired; but the the One who inspired: Your father which is in heaven. Get it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
you do not know why you chose to think what you thought at that moment in time.
wrong. it is called the objective correlative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
The process of something occurring to me is completely random.
In general, I agree with your two posits. However, the quote above regarding the 2nd posit is incomplete. One can go through a carefully structured thought process, not just by random thought, to have something occur to one. Happens all the time, yet, you discount it as being strictly random. Whereas, a deliberate thought process is not at all random. That's the first problem.
Second problem: You then launch into this assumption of using Japan and Australia as possible "random" countries to pick, and assume your place in another's [ours] mind, and proceed merrily through a sequence of thinking, and how we might respond to a series of questions about our selection. only, we may not go through the thinking process you suppose is the only possible thought track. Quite simply, you already know what assumptions make of us. Don't think that just because you did not consider we may think differently than you, that our method of thought is not the correct method.
Third problem: "Well, what other factors can control your movement?" Well, I reply, just the fact that without my moving a muscle, sitting on a park bench, I am already moving with the rotation of the Earth, also moving in its orbit around the Sun, which is, simultaneously and differently, moving in orbit about the center of the galaxy, which, separate and distinct from all previous movements, is in its own course around... whatever. For me sitting still, that 's a lot of separate moving phenomena, all in keeping with holy physics. So, stuff the idea of determinism because, in spite of all that movement that exists, but over which I have no control, I just rose from the park bench, went to the airport and flew to Egypt to see the pyramids, a country to which I have never been, but have desired to see as part of my bucket list. So, no, it was not a random choice, but I made the choice, none the less, and felt no obligation by determinism to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
Curious that sex is frequent chosen subject of democrat thinking
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Curious that sex is frequent chosen subject of democrat thinking
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You have completely missed my point. I d not ask that you accept what is written as evidence. Ask the source of the inspired, but possibly corrupted words what is the truth. Do you think it is just going to hit you over your head?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Blah, blah, blah.
lf you draw your gun, shoot it, don’t just bore us talking about it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE
By my choice. Go ahead and banish me. Try, at least.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I've just shared with you the basics of how to obtain the evidence. That you choose to not employ it is on you, by your choice. It is not rocket science.
Created:
Posted in:
I've never used Yahoo Answers, so I don't know enough to miss it. However, I do agree with Chris in regard to Quora. I will seldom use it as a source in debate, though I have been known to use Wiki, in spite of my well known opposition to it. Sometimes, it is a valid source [based entirely on finding support of other websites which are not as easily referenced, but I have at least looked]. But, let's recall that when I started debating in high school, or had to write an essay, I didn't have an Internet; I had a library with stacks. Some of you may have never darkened the door of one. Too bad. How many of you have personal, physically visited the Library of Congress [actually, several buildings]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
First, thank you for your kind words, I do respect you, though we often have disagreement. You, likewise, treat me with respect, so it rewards itself. There are others who do cause a rise in anger in me, but I've learned that such a response is not so much doubt in myself, and I do have them, believe me, but because I lose control of my emotions; effectively surrendering to the one at whom I become angry. I think that is the more exact cause of anger. It's just frustrating that the source of that anger is not the other person, but the one I face in the mirror. Sometimes, thinking that way helps.
This is why I say that the 1A freedom of speech has couched in it, unsaid, that we have the freedom to be offended. It isn't that we should allow ourselves to be offended, but rather, that we should not, in anger, seek to censure as the proper response. The freedom of speech includes the right to say nothing at all, rather than say something in anger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
no. it's a fetus. Which isn't a person. It might be some day, but isn't yet.
1 U.S. Code § 8: " In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."
The only distinction between a fetus ["at any stage ofd development"] and a person is that the person is a product of live birth. There is no other biologic or genetic difference. The person breathes air, while the fetus breathes liquid, but the chemistry, function, purpose, and result is exactly the same: O2 enters the bloodstream as an essential element to all living animals as a fuel. Therefore, your statement that a fetus is "someday" a person is blatantly false, because the day of occurrence is set medically and legally, "regardless of stage of development." It must be alive, period, which it is before birth. It's DNA has defined it as Homo sapiens from even before conception, as living, paired gametes of human DNA.
Besides, the "right of the woman" to the exclusion of the fetus is a nebulous right since no part of the fetal tissue, including not just the fetus, but the umbilical, amniotic sac and its fluid, and the placenta, do not share DNA with the mother. Those various tissues are unique to the fetus, which is only contained by the mother, but not a single cell of the one is shared by the other. As I have said numerous times elsewhere, were it not so, whenever a woman opened her mouth, her tongue would fall out, because one can just as easily say the tongue is not part of her body. it is, an that is the difference. Not so, the fetus. It is a distinct individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Obviously, my example offers no personal past event, the point of the flawed syllogism offered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have never said anything different:
you want to have evidence of anything, go to the source of the answer sought.
why ask a plumber a carpenter’s question?
However, one must ask with a sincere desire to know, which means one can never assume they already have the answer and are asking doubting an answer will be given, which is how most approach such questions
Created:
Posted in:
This is all in good fun, and is not current, but, I ran across this toast recently, and though it might bring a smile:
The election is over,
Your party lost, my party won,
So raise a glass, let arguments pass,
I'll hug my elephant, you can kiss your ass.
Created:
Posted in:
The desire to scoop has completely overwhelmed the media to the extent that they throw caution to the wind, get an inkling of a story, and, if it cannot be properly vetted within a few hours, they give up on the attempt and publish as is; sometimes, creating elements of the story out of pure fiction, assuming they’re right.
Recent history says they usually are not even close to the truth. After all, it seems they can just retract the story, and all is forgiven. They can repeat with a revolving door to the retraction confessional, if they bother to do even that. Nonsense.
Case in point: When Jesus was confronted by the scribes who dragged in tow a woman caught in flagrante committing adultery, and Jesus said to the scribes that he who was without sin could cast the first stone, the scribes walked away, accused and self-convicting. To the woman, he did not merely say: “You are forgiven,” he also said, “Go, and sin no more.”
The media are like the scribes, willing to be shamed. But then, they ignore the point that they should not do it again.
Created: