Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The outcome of conception is the result in consequence in gender contrast and the result in the DNA of another human life....so what seems an inference then is illogical. The requirement for a universe is gravity, the requirement for gravity is a setting with an equation already in motion....2+2=4....note, consequence out of contrast, territory....gender or 2+ gender or 2 equals 4....life and consequence in reason out of contrast is the issue, all integrals in math, the common ground language of existence is attributed to...it cannot scientifically be supported that 2 alone has the quantitative value of 4...which if I understand you correctly is what is being suggested, and against what is fundementally known.
Fairly typical ploy, here. At one moment, make an argument of principle (all innocent human life must be protected!), then when that proves problematic, switch to a consequential or practical argument (well, yes sperm constitutes human life, but since it is only half of the equation in actually creating a human being, that particular human life is not deserving of rights).
This is a start. You've acknowledged that not all innocent human life is deserving of rights. Once we can get you to concede that, it's not impossible to imagine a future scenario in which you are able to concede that a two-week old fetus is radically different than an 8-month old fetus and that perhaps one should be afforded rights that the other should not.
It's legal. ( I would not have published the information, but no one asked me)
HIPAA protects medical information.
Ann knows this. She's just making noise.
the Obama care program include sthe RFI chip that will be installed in patents recieveing mediac care starting in May I think.
Proposidly to make finding records on a person easier , the problem is it is soon to become the national form of ID another way to control you.
Can you say the mark of the Beast ?
If it is not it ,what ever it is, is awfully close to it.
Have a nice day.
Fairly typical ploy, here. At one moment, make an argument of principle (all innocent human life must be protected!), then when that proves problematic, switch to a consequential or practical argument (well, yes sperm constitutes human life, but since it is only half of the equation in actually creating a human being, that particular human life is not deserving of rights).
This is a start. You've acknowledged that not all innocent human life is deserving of rights. Once we can get you to concede that, it's not impossible to imagine a future scenario in which you are able to concede that a two-week old fetus is radically different than an 8-month old fetus and that perhaps one should be afforded rights that the other should not.
What is the justification for providing a fetus of one age with different rights than a fetus of another age? The only difference I can see is that one will be more developed than the other, and I don't see how that is at all relevant as regards whether it should get more rights than the other when it comes to whether it should live or die. It's the same organism, just a different stage of development. It doesn't magically transform from one form of life into another at a certain period in time.
the Obama care program include sthe RFI chip that will be installed in patents recieveing mediac care starting in May I think.
Proposidly to make finding records on a person easier , the problem is it is soon to become the national form of ID another way to control you.
Can you say the mark of the Beast ?
If it is not it ,what ever it is, is awfully close to it.
Have a nice day.
This post reminds me of the fact that "The Omen" is infinitely more frightening than "The Exorcist."
This post reminds me of the fact that "The Omen" is infinitely more frightening than "The Exorcist."
That may be true (unlike the post you are responding to), but I still can't eat green pea soup. Yellow split pea? Totally fine.
Come to think of it, I half expect Ann Coulter's head to spin around and fling green goo everywhere whenever she speaks. What ends up coming out of her mouth is equally unpalatable.
Fairly typical ploy, here. At one moment, make an argument of principle (all innocent human life must be protected!), then when that proves problematic, switch to a consequential or practical argument (well, yes sperm constitutes human life, but since it is only half of the equation in actually creating a human being, that particular human life is not deserving of rights).
This is a start. You've acknowledged that not all innocent human life is deserving of rights. Once we can get you to concede that, it's not impossible to imagine a future scenario in which you are able to concede that a two-week old fetus is radically different than an 8-month old fetus and that perhaps one should be afforded rights that the other should not.
Hold on...where did I say all life force's are not deserving of their appropriate rights..? Now it could be argued that it is implied in the shown interest to preserve the conceived, although now in conception their are two, not only one contribution, plus value in consequence...this is my position and it seems to follow a reasoned path, where all we have including above is confusion and challenge...( at least relative to this bit of it
What is the justification for providing a fetus of one age with different rights than a fetus of another age? The only difference I can see is that one will be more developed than the other, and I don't see how that is at all relevant as regards whether it should get more rights than the other when it comes to whether it should live or die. It's the same organism, just a different stage of development. It doesn't magically transform from one form of life into another at a certain period in time.
Really? Do you react the same way to stepping on a cockroach as you would to killing a primate? What about euthanizing a person in a permanent vegetative state versus someone knocked temporarily unconscious in an accident?
Also, where has anyone attributed anything "magical" to the fact that at some point, a fetus is little more than a clump of cells and at a later point, it is much like an infant? I would take you folks much more seriously if you demonstrated the slightest capability of nuanced thinking. I really am open to being persuaded that there is a point at which the state should be allowed to preclude a woman from having an abortion. Unfortunately, you devote nearly all your time to ridiculous arguments, such as the principle that all innocent human life is deserving of rights or that development should be irrelevant in deciding whether a fetus shall be granted rights. If you focused more on that period of development where it really does become an issue of a sentient being, you'd be much more effective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Medical info is about to become public.
