Mourdock Down Double Digits in New Poll

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If you are asking if I would be all right if science decided to kill me, rather than let me die based on the conditions I specified in my advance directive, I definitely would not.

But if history is any indication it seems people have more to fear from that happening under the banner of religion than science.

And if you believe that then you are far more uneducated than I would have imagined.

 

[rw02kr43]

vote

me too

 

[printcraft]

Still voting for Mourdock.

This. /\

 

[ATOMonkey]

Science comes up with bright line definitions all the time. A previous post included some rough statistics of survival rates for premature births. Those are bright line figures that resulted from rational inquiry, they weren't handed down in stone. Which is lucky for us since science invented means to improve them, as noted in the same post.

Despite all science has invented a fertilized egg, prior to any cell division, has 0% "viability" outside a human womb.

Yes, and you were once a fertilized egg.

 

[Solitaire]

Yes, and you were once a fertilized egg.

No he wasn't. The fertilized egg became him, after much development.

Or are eggs and chickens the same things?

 

[mlzoiss]

The only thing people don't like about the Tea Party is the false characterization by the media labeling them as redneck racist radicals, which couldn't be further from the truth. What is radical about lower taxes, less government and more freedom?

When I hear someone protest against the evil Tea Party, and they explain their beliefs, it is usually exactly what the Tea Party believes! They just don't care to educate themselves.

I will stand with our founding fathers, freedom, and the TEA PARTY everyday until I die. And that includes voting for Murdock, a completely reasonable man whose words were twisted into something they were not.

Every baby conceived on this Earth is loved and made by our creator. No person is ever a "mistake." Unless you consider the flawed and selfish desires of human beings. There is nothing wrong with his entire statement, and the majority of Americans who claim to be pro-life, believe EXACTLY the same way.

A powerful new video features five women who were conceived in rape. They say they are strongly supporting pro-life Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who was the subject of controversy recently over his comments about how he opposes abortion in cases of rape.

“The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother,” Mourdock said. “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Women Born After Rape Support Mourdock: "We're Not a Mistake" | LifeNews.com

Rebecca Kiessling, a pro-life attorney who was conceived in rape, adds: “Richard Mourdock is another one of those heroes. And I’m thankful that he can recognize that the rapist is not my creator and that I’m not a product of rape but a child of God.”
​

 

[ATOMonkey]

No he wasn't. The fertilized egg became him, after much development.

Or are eggs and chickens the same things?

Fertilized egg is just a stage of development.

Same as infant, toddler, child, teen, etc.

At all stages of human life, there is growth and development.

 

[Solitaire]

Fertilized egg is just a stage of development.

Same as infant, toddler, child, teen, etc.

At all stages of human life, there is growth and development.

But unlike your other examples (infant, child, etc.), it is not, in itself, a human being quite yet. Any suggestion that it is comes from religion, not science. And therein lies the problem.

 

[mlzoiss]

It is understandable that the thread went that direction, given the topic is Mourdock. He made clear he would base some of his law making decisions on complete fiction, and it isn't like a rational argument on the issues can proceed from there. What other decisions he would make that are based on something other than fact we don't know.

But I've read some thoughtful opinions on limiting abortion that are based in rational though and I greatly respect them. Never seen a good plan to turn them into law but that doesn't mean there isn't one out there. Religion is most definitely not the only basis for respect life (and not just human). It isn't even the best basis.

You say that his beliefs are based on "fiction," what about our judicial system which [STRIKE]is based on[/STRIKE] incorporates the ten commandments and rights endowed by our creator? Does that also make it equally invalid?

The idea of good and evil did not come from nothing, and it is not a subjective creation made by man.

 

[Stickfight]

Apparently you don't know what a "bright line" is. "Birth" is a bright line, "conception" is a bright line, a range of survival rates spanning weeks or months is not a bright line that can be written into law in order to give reasonable notice of the behavior expected.

How is a percentage at a given number of weeks not a bright line?

 

[mlzoiss]

But unlike your other examples (infant, child, etc.), it is not, in itself, a human being quite yet. Any suggestion that it is comes from religion, not science. And therein lies the problem.

Ah, but that is incorrect. It IS a human being, an individual with all of the material required to develop into a complete adult contained within.

A fertilized egg does not have the opportunity to develop into any other species at any point in it's development. It CAN'T be anything else but a human being.

 

[Solitaire]

You say that his beliefs are based on "fiction," what about our judicial system which is based on the ten commandments? Does that also make our entire judicial system and the laws created by our government based on moral code equally invalid?

The idea of good and evil did not come from nothing, and it is not a subjective creation made by man.

The idea that our judicial system is based on the ten commandments is laughable. You really, really, really need to take a history class or something.

I note that there is no prohibition against rape in the ten commandments, although you are toast if you say Mr. Big's name with a bad attitude.

Where is adultery addressed in our judicial system? Or coveting?

You can't be serious.

 

[R.G.Gray]

as if we're not now?

 

[ATOMonkey]

But unlike your other examples (infant, child, etc.), it is not, in itself, a human being quite yet. Any suggestion that it is comes from religion, not science. And therein lies the problem.

The beginnings of human life are scientific opinion, based on philosophy.

There are many single celled organisms that are considered to be alive.

 

[Solitaire]

Ah, but that is incorrect. It IS a human being, an individual with all of the material required to develop into a complete adult contained within.

A fertilized egg does not have the opportunity to develop into any other species at any point in it's development. It CAN'T be anything else but a human being.

I apologize, but I really can't have a discussion with someone regarding the nature of life and fetal development with someone who thinks that our government is based on the ten commandments.

Please have a nice day.

 

[mlzoiss]

I apologize, but I really can't have a discussion with someone regarding the nature of life and fetal development with someone who thinks that our government is based on the ten commandments.

Please have a nice day.

And now you are changing my words to suit your argument. I said nothing about our "government" being based on the ten commandments.

That is really a cop-out on your part. Or you just don't have a good answer.

 

[Solitaire]

The beginnings of human life are scientific opinion, based on philosophy.

There are many single celled organisms that are considered to be alive.

Life comes in many forms, but surely you do not consider single cell organisms to be on par with fully developed human life.

 

[Stickfight]

And if you believe that then you are far more uneducated than I would have imagined.

Then I don't know what it is you are asking me and you continuing to be coy about it isn't helping.

 

[mlzoiss]

The idea that our judicial system is based on the ten commandments is laughable. You really, really, really need to take a history class or something.

I note that there is no prohibition against rape in the ten commandments, although you are toast if you say Mr. Big's name with a bad attitude.

Where is adultery addressed in our judicial system? Or coveting?

You can't be serious.

The ten commandments are expressed in civil law in American history in many ways, as well as being displayed in our courts, including the Supreme Court. Just because there is no direct law correlating to each commandment doesn't mean you are correct.

Your beliefs don't make you intellectually superior. So you can drop the act.

 

[Solitaire]

That is really a cop-out on your part. Or you just don't have a good answer.

No, it's not a cop out. Your amazing level of ignorance regarding the establishment of our government and judicial system leads me to believe that a conversation with you would be annoying at best. Opinions can differ over the beginnings of life, but to actually believe that the founding fathers based our government on the ten commandments, despite actual recorded statements and writings to the contrary, is mind-bogglingly ignorant to me. This is not something which is subject to opinion.