View Single Post
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2008, 01:09 PM
bluedog bluedog is offline
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: chapmanville, wv
Posts: 4,999
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IusIuris View Post
People, you have just witnessed the defeat of PaleRider's argument under his own stated terms : dishonesty.

Proof :
What an idiot, the male sperm nor the female egg in the fact of being "separate" contain NO LIFE....only the genetic markers or indicators for life. However once placed to together a chemical combination of the two form "LIFE"....and the point of this happenstance is called "the conception of life". Once conceived it is nothing short of human life in a state of gestation. Dehumanize it, call it a clump of cells, a fetus, or whatever you wish...but in reality of this physical world it is alive and growing and individually made separate to both of its parental benefactors as the science of DNA technology clearly demonstrates, and more commonly demonstrated via the fact of having a separate blood supply than than of its mother, and death many times results if the two completely different blood supplies contaminate one or the other. Its pointless to argue that 1) human life is not present 2) that life is not a separate individual life entity than either contributing parent, as surely "science" demonstrates the fact that it is. The only position that you can and "do" take is the semantical legal position that our court system has taken...even against its own demonstrated knowledge to the contrary, that life does not become important until it breeches the birth canal. That position in and by itself was made in contradiction of two hundred years of legal precedence that did not allow the gestating child to be destroyed without "due cause" or reason other than the personal wishes of the female that does not consider the life of the unborn nor the legal rights of the other parent who is "allowed" to be involved only during "conception" and after the fact of birth..but magically excluded when the life of his child is held in the hand of a "single" individual. Sheer idiocy, nothing but. That's like concluding by lack of any clear logic, that any hospital has the inherent authority to pull the life support of any individual they wish....simply because they are being cared for inside their building. This position clearly does away with any factors that consider "morality", just as the hospital has the "responsibility" for maintaining life....so does any female have the inherent responsibility to care and nurture the life that she has allowed to be present in her body. Its a demonstration of Evil to accept anything other. BD

Last edited by bluedog; 05-19-2008 at 01:24 PM.
Reply With Quote