Now that Ive cooled off....

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

Originally posted by KCAA


Sorry, but no. And I bet ALOT of people will disagree there.,

Sorry but yes it is a science.

Once the sperm cell hits the egg, it is now fertilized, and this is when Prenatal Development starts and this is what science calls the start of life once the Single-Cell Zygot is formed. Keep in mind physical development has now started. Once the egg is fertilized with the sperm cell you receive what science calls 46 chromosomes, half of which are from your mother and the other half from your father. In other words there is no such thing as life in science with only a sperm cell, for without the egg it just dies, no physical nor cognitive development has started in the sperm cell until it reaches the egg meaning that it is not life until that happens. So in other words scien considers that when the sperm cell hits the egg it is now officially life because physical development into a Zygot has happened as well as the 46 chromosomes rules has instantly happened. So what Ryan mentioned is a valid case of what is known as SCIENCE life.

So Ryan is correct and please if you want to say sorry, but no please give an extensive analysis onto why you say that and not just go about it in that nature.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by KCAA


Sorry, but no. And I bet ALOT of people will disagree there.,

God save me from willfully ignorant people? There's no scientific debate about when life starts? It's all about religion? There's no legal argument about when life begins and ends? It's all about religion?

Did you know there are specific legal definitions of both when life has 'begun' and 'ended'? Probably not.

So, all arguments about when life begins are based in religion? Then on what do you base YOUR argument about when life begins? Apparently religion must dictate YOUR beliefs on when life begins, just like mine, and Dmitry's and Voice's.

Otherwise your argument makes no ****ing sense. Oh, and "I bet a lot of people would disagree with you" is yet another lame Proof Surrogate. You really need to work on that.

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

Here's a scientifical definition of life for you KCAA:

"The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."
-Dictionary.com

And you'll notice all of those factors come into play only once the egg is fertilized with the sperm cell. Slowly from stage 1 it begins to grow and adapt to what the carrier eats. Asfter stimuli and adaptation develops and once the baby is born, about 10-12 years later reproduction comes into play.

So you have to understand that none of those features are there until the egg is fertilized with the sperm. This is when, and again i stress SCIENCE, not people, not religion, but SCIENCE considers life has started.

So by Birth Control pills not allowing the already fertilized egg attatch to the uterine wall like Ryan mentioned, is basically killing life.

[Ryan H.]

Look at Dmitry! Kicking ass research style! Soooo nice to have a dialogue with someone who looks into something BEFORE posting about it

[Voice]

The fact remains that the majority of the people who oppose abortion, do so because of their religious beliefs.

And most of the time, science is used in an arguement on the pro-choice side.

Your legal arguement might work, if George W. Bush was a scientist and not christian. But he's not, he's christian, he's the president. AND HE WANTS TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL.

Not because he's a scientist......

From his side, it's not a straight up legal matter with no religion involved. And all the people who voted for him because of his "morals" are in the same boat that he is. They voted for him because they thought that he could make abortion and gay marriage illegal. (obviously those weren't the only reasons in alot of cases, so no need to point that out or assume that I meant that it was the only reason.)

But as you pointed out earlier, he can't.

And as I pointed out, I don't care if he can't, he wants to. That's enough for me.

Yes, I may not be as versed in politics or political issues as you, I don't concern myself with it too much. All I cared about in school was art class, and language arts/english.

But explain to me how my not knowing too much about the legal side of an issue, somehow makes me less intelligent? Or how it has anything at all to do with my level of education?

And you keep asking me to give you proof of us being close to a Theocracy, and I keep telling you....abortion...same-sex marriage...illegal......I can't give you more than that because those are the only two things so far that lean in the direction of Theocracy.

And if you'd remember a few pages back I think.....I stated something along the lines of "we are still a far cry away from being a Theocracy." So I think you are getting the wrong impression when I say "we are close to being a Theocracy."

What I'm really saying is " We aren't a Theocracy, but these two things that have appeared since Bush's re-election are along the basic guidelines of a Theocracy...."

So can that go down in history so you stop bringing it up and asking me for proof that we are almost a Theocracy? I said we aren't one for like the sixth time now. And That's what I've said since the very first post in this thread that I made.

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

Originally posted by Voice
The fact remains that the majority of the people who oppose abortion, do so because of their religious beliefs.

And most of the time, science is used in an arguement on the pro-choice side.

Your legal arguement might work, if George W. Bush was a scientist and not christian. But he's not, he's christian, he's the president. AND HE WANTS TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL.

Not because he's a scientist......

From his side, it's not a straight up legal matter with no religion involved. And all the people who voted for him because of his "morals" are in the same boat that he is. They voted for him because they thought that he could make abortion and gay marriage illegal. (obviously those weren't the only reasons in alot of cases, so no need to point that out or assume that I meant that it was the only reason.)

But as you pointed out earlier, he can't.

And as I pointed out, I don't care if he can't, he wants to. That's enough for me.

Yes, I may not be as versed in politics or political issues as you, I don't concern myself with it too much. All I cared about in school was art class, and language arts/english.

But explain to me how my not knowing too much about the legal side of an issue, somehow makes me less intelligent? Or how it has anything at all to do with my level of education?

And you keep asking me to give you proof of us being close to a Theocracy, and I keep telling you....abortion...same-sex marriage...illegal......I can't give you more than that because those are the only two things so far that lean in the direction of Theocracy.

And if you'd remember a few pages back I think.....I stated something along the lines of "we are still a far cry away from being a Theocracy." So I think you are getting the wrong impression when I say "we are close to being a Theocracy."

What I'm really saying is " We aren't a Theocracy, but these two things that have appeared since Bush's re-election are along the basic guidelines of a Theocracy...."

So can that go down in history so you stop bringing it up and asking me for proof that we are almost a Theocracy? I said we aren't one for like the sixth time now. And That's what I've said since the very first post in this thread that I made.

Firstly, abortion you cannot prove is moving towards a theocracyYour only valid point going to the direction of theocracy is same-sex marriages. I'll tell you why because many people like ME don't give a shit what religion has to say about abortion, i believe that scientifically like i stated earlier once the egg is fertilized with a sperm cell life has been created. That is why i strongly against abortion unless in cases severe such as rape.

Secondly Ryan puts you down in intelligence because all your points are not valid but rather opinion of what you believe. Atleast with mine or Ryan's beliefs we can backup with validity. And i don't circle myself in politics neither, i use something called High School/College Education and the INTERNET to backup what i say. In example when i posted the unemployment rate link KCAA couldnt say shit anymore, because those are straight forward FACTS. And when science believes life starts, by me posting a definition and explaining it further, and using my knowledge of Psychology 101 he can't tell me no that science doesn't think that anymore.

Then lets take your 1 case left about same-sex marriage, though even if you know it can't happen then why is it coming closer to a theocracy? So what you are saying is that for every amendment proposed every single goddamn year just because it's proposed i'm supposed to say we're coming closer to a theocracy. That's bullshit because people have the free will to propose whatever they want and just because Bush is president he still abides to the same free will laws. Just because 2 little things are only proposed that makes us closer to war. So if some idiot proposes that we make an amendment for a government controlled economy, does that mean i have to say we are coming closer to theocracy? No it doesn't.

Nothing was passed, we are not a theocracy, and you should stop complaining about what is not but rather complain about what is bad about Bush's presidency.

[Voice]

That's what I've been complaining about this whole time, I view his stance on abortion and same-sex marriage as a NEGATIVE to his presidency.

As for supplying proof of my statements, I didn't think I had to provide proof for the abortion/same-sex marriage thing. And I didn't think I had to provide any proof for my opinion on the matter.

Simply put, I don't think abortion should be illegal, and I don't think same-sex marriage should be illegal.

Whatever the reasons may be, shouldn't be of any concern. The fact that my level of education has been questioned, and my intelligence has been attacked concerns me. Just because my opinions on the matter differ from Ryans.

Talking about the basic human rights of the unborn child, while leaving the basic human rights of the woman carrying said child.....I believe a woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to have a kid, if she didn't do that at the time of conception, by using birth control or whatever kind of contraception....doesn't matter at all to me.

I do disagree with women using it as a replacement to birth control....but am I going to stop it? no. Is anyone? Probably not, but the issue has been put into the forefront of this presidency, and so has same-sex marriage.

That's why I tried to point out, that yes, in many cases religion has nothing to do with the debate of abortion or same-sex marriage. But in the case of our president, it is entirely based on religion. And the same goes for the large percent of his supporters.

If that's going to be denied, then go ahead and deny it.....but I've been constantly asked for proof showing that we are nearing a theocracy, and have not been offered any proof that these two topics were put on the table with no religious concerns at all.

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

Originally posted by Voice

Simply put, I don't think abortion should be illegal, and I don't think same-sex marriage should be illegal.

Yes but it is not illigal, that's what i'm trying to point out. That means we are not coming closer to theocracy. You are saying that if something like that is proposed we come closer to a theocracy.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by Voice
The fact remains that the majority of the people who oppose abortion, do so because of their religious beliefs.

Prove it. Until then you're just spouting more bullshit. Your anecdotal experiences do not equal fact, and I hope you realize that one day.

[svosen]

Voice: I could be mistaken, but I don't think Ryan ever said you weren't intelligent. He said you are "ignorant." Look up the definitions for both of those words; they are not synonymous.

You guys all know I'm a Christian. I also happen to be conservative. The two don't go hand in hand. One of my best friends, also a Christian, voted for Kerry. It is ignorant (again, look it up) to assume that everyone who voted for Bush was Christian, just like it's ignorant to assume that everyone who votes for what Bush believes in shares Bush's religious leanings.

I'm not really sure what you were trying to say about Bush not being a scientist because he's a Christian. Are you implying that Christians are incapable of scientific thought? I really hope you're not. I personally know several devout Christians who are have incredible scientific minds. And when I use the term "scientist," I'm speaking of someone who actually applies scientific principles. Not junk-scientists. Our society is trained to believe anyone in a white lab coat who holds a test tube or looks through a microscope must be a "scientist," and everything they say is automatically considered fact. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

As for my stance on abortion:

I too have gone back and forth on the subject. Whoever said it all boils down to the issue when life actually begins is right. Well, sort of. Speaking from a political perspective, the beginning of life is the critical factor. For me personally (because of my faith), the issue is actually the point at which the human soul is assigned to the organism. There's no question, scientifically, that the fertalized egg is an organism. There is a question as to whether or not it is a HUMAN organism at that point. In my mind, the only difference between "life" and "human life" is the soul.

Anyhow, like I said, I've gone back and forth. I used to believe that it was the woman's right to choose. However, you have to accept that the woman is making choices for her and the life within her. There is absolutely no question that abortion terminates the life an organism separate from the woman. The question is whether it is a HUMAN life that is being terminated. Because I don't know, and I don't expect to know in this life, I will always prefer to err on the side of caution, so to speak.

You can talk about separating my "religious" beliefs from my politcal philosophy all you want, but that is such a ludicrous concept that I can't even begin to address it. Because of my faith, I can not condone abortion, and I will always speak to my beliefs and vote accordingly. To do otherwise would be to betray myself, and, worse, betray the One in whom I place my faith.

As for all the political discussions and arguments in this thread (and others): Ryan is right. If you don't have any actual, documented facts, then you really shouldn't speak as if your opinions are absolute truth. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course, but it's not appropriate to claim yours is universal, or even common, without some sort of credible backup.

I'm always amazed that Odin and Ryan are so well informed on political issues. I'd often like to respond, but I usually end up opting not to because I don't make the time to properly research what they're talking about (in other words, I am relatively ignorant on such topics as these). Everyone has to decide which topics thew will remain ignorant about, as nobody can be all knowing. However, only a fool would claim to be knowlegable about that which he is in fact ignorant.