TexasTiger 14,575 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 WOW ! I had you wrongly pegged BB. Thought you were a smart guy. Guess you missed history classes so you could go toke a few. Do you plan on discussing this like an adult, or are we going to start flinging ad hominem attacks? For the past 2,000 years it's been the teaching of the church that the destruction of a fertilized egg is considered abortion. Actually, this view precedes Christian dogma. It doesn't have to be implanted. Since the abortionists, which I assume you support, have come en masse in the past few decades they've decided to play "fast and loose with the term abortion" in order to make it more appealing. Right. 2,000 years. Going to play fast and loose with history, too? Up until about 400 years ago, we weren't even aware viviparous animals had eggs. Google Nicolas Steno. :rolleyes:/> Tipper being an adult would be a first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,977 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 he is googling viviparous animals now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,468 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...My regard for innocent life is higher though than the standard that the Ella issue presents which is the attempted interception of a fertilized egg from implantation. To me, once the egg is fertilized it IS a human being who truly bears the image of God and is precious no matter how infinitesimal. Human intervention to thwart its implantation is abortion. To support the prescribed use of Ella you must regard the fertilized egg as unwanted debris, an inconvenience, rather than a responsibility and gift from God. Playing fast and loose with the term abortion, I see. I suppose you think the 80 or so percent of fertilized eggs that don't make it to implantation without intervention of any sort could be considered miscarriages, too. WOW ! I had you wrongly pegged BB. Thought you were a smart guy. Guess you missed history classes so you could go toke a few. For the past 2,000 years it's been the teaching of the church that the destruction of a fertilized egg is considered abortion. Actually, this view precedes Christian dogma. It doesn't have to be implanted. Since the abortionists, which I assume you support, have come en masse in the past few decades they've decided to play "fast and loose with the term abortion" in order to make it more appealing. I absolutely agree with you ET! Anyone who doesn't believe what I believe, is stupid. They more than likely, have a long history of drug abuse. I would add, these types hate America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 21,583 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...My regard for innocent life is higher though than the standard that the Ella issue presents which is the attempted interception of a fertilized egg from implantation. To me, once the egg is fertilized it IS a human being who truly bears the image of God and is precious no matter how infinitesimal. Human intervention to thwart its implantation is abortion. To support the prescribed use of Ella you must regard the fertilized egg as unwanted debris, an inconvenience, rather than a responsibility and gift from God. Playing fast and loose with the term abortion, I see. I suppose you think the 80 or so percent of fertilized eggs that don't make it to implantation without intervention of any sort could be considered miscarriages, too. There is a difference between a miscarriage and a forced miscarriage. To conflate the two as if there's no distinction between a medication that can induce such a thing and that thing happening on its own would be like saying there's no difference in driving along and accidentally picking up a nail in your tire and someone tossing a box full of nails on to the road right in front of your car as you drive by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...My regard for innocent life is higher though than the standard that the Ella issue presents which is the attempted interception of a fertilized egg from implantation. To me, once the egg is fertilized it IS a human being who truly bears the image of God and is precious no matter how infinitesimal. Human intervention to thwart its implantation is abortion. To support the prescribed use of Ella you must regard the fertilized egg as unwanted debris, an inconvenience, rather than a responsibility and gift from God. Playing fast and loose with the term abortion, I see. I suppose you think the 80 or so percent of fertilized eggs that don't make it to implantation without intervention of any sort could be considered miscarriages, too. There is a difference between a miscarriage and a forced miscarriage. To conflate the two as if there's no distinction between a medication that can induce such a thing and that thing happening on its own would be like saying there's no difference in driving along and accidentally picking up a nail in your tire and someone tossing a box full of nails on to the road right in front of your car as you drive by. A fertilized egg that never implants is not a miscarriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...My regard for innocent life is higher though than the standard that the Ella issue presents which is the attempted interception of a fertilized egg from implantation. To me, once the egg is fertilized it IS a human being who truly bears the image of God and is precious no matter how infinitesimal. Human intervention to thwart its implantation is abortion. To support the prescribed use of Ella you must regard the fertilized egg as unwanted debris, an inconvenience, rather than a responsibility and gift from God. Playing fast and loose with the term abortion, I see. I suppose you think the 80 or so percent of fertilized eggs that don't make it to implantation without intervention of any sort could be considered miscarriages, too. WOW ! I had you wrongly pegged BB. Thought you were a smart guy. Guess you missed history classes so you could go toke a few. For the past 2,000 years it's been the teaching of the church that the destruction of a fertilized egg is considered abortion. Actually, this view precedes Christian dogma. It doesn't have to be implanted. Since the abortionists, which I assume you support, have come en masse in the past few decades they've decided to play "fast and loose with the term abortion" in order to make it more appealing. I absolutely agree with you ET! Anyone who doesn't believe what I believe, is stupid. They more than likely, have a long history of drug abuse. I would add, these types hate America. You just need to try reciprocating more of that "conservative empathy" he demonstrates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...My regard for innocent life is higher though than the standard that the Ella issue presents which is the attempted interception of a fertilized egg from implantation. To me, once the egg is fertilized it IS a human being who truly bears the image of God and is precious no matter how infinitesimal. Human intervention to thwart its implantation is abortion. To support the prescribed use of Ella you must regard the fertilized egg as unwanted debris, an inconvenience, rather than a responsibility and gift from God. Playing fast and loose with the term abortion, I see. I suppose you think the 80 or so percent of fertilized eggs that don't make it to implantation without intervention of any sort could be considered miscarriages, too. There is a difference between a miscarriage and a forced miscarriage. To conflate the two as if there's no distinction between a medication that can induce such a thing and that thing happening on its own would be like saying there's no difference in driving along and accidentally picking up a nail in your tire and someone tossing a box full of nails on to the road right in front of your car as you drive by. A fertilized egg that never implants is not a miscarriage. A fertilized egg is not a "baby" either so you are barking up a tree. Controlling the terminology is a neat way around the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 21,583 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...My regard for innocent life is higher though than the standard that the Ella issue presents which is the attempted interception of a fertilized egg from implantation. To me, once the egg is fertilized it IS a human being who truly bears the image of God and is precious no matter how infinitesimal. Human intervention to thwart its implantation is abortion. To support the prescribed use of Ella you must regard the fertilized egg as unwanted debris, an inconvenience, rather than a responsibility and gift from God. Playing fast and loose with the term abortion, I see. I suppose you think the 80 or so percent of fertilized eggs that don't make it to implantation without intervention of any sort could be considered miscarriages, too. There is a difference between a miscarriage and a forced miscarriage. To conflate the two as if there's no distinction between a medication that can induce such a thing and that thing happening on its own would be like saying there's no difference in driving along and accidentally picking up a nail in your tire and someone tossing a box full of nails on to the road right in front of your car as you drive by. A fertilized egg that never implants is not a miscarriage. We're not using technical terminology here. The point was, there is a distinct difference in something that happens naturally without human intervention and something that is purposefully done to make it happen. If a fertilized egg doesn't implant on its own that's not a moral dilemma. If you deliberately do something to try and hopefully prevent it from implanting, it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 21,583 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...My regard for innocent life is higher though than the standard that the Ella issue presents which is the attempted interception of a fertilized egg from implantation. To me, once the egg is fertilized it IS a human being who truly bears the image of God and is precious no matter how infinitesimal. Human intervention to thwart its implantation is abortion. To support the prescribed use of Ella you must regard the fertilized egg as unwanted debris, an inconvenience, rather than a responsibility and gift from God. Playing fast and loose with the term abortion, I see. I suppose you think the 80 or so percent of fertilized eggs that don't make it to implantation without intervention of any sort could be considered miscarriages, too. There is a difference between a miscarriage and a forced miscarriage. To conflate the two as if there's no distinction between a medication that can induce such a thing and that thing happening on its own would be like saying there's no difference in driving along and accidentally picking up a nail in your tire and someone tossing a box full of nails on to the road right in front of your car as you drive by. A fertilized egg that never implants is not a miscarriage. A fertilized egg is not a "baby" either so you are barking up a tree. Controlling the terminology is a neat way around the facts. I'm well aware of the efforts to control the terminology to make certain decisions more palatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 12,021 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 We're not using technical terminology here.... I am, and I assume channonc is, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 21,583 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 We're not using technical terminology here.... I am, and I assume channonc is, too. Perhaps you are. It doesn't change the morality discussion. Call it 'miscarriage', 'failed implantation', or make up a whole new term for it if you like. The moral question does not hinge on the term you choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,468 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...My regard for innocent life is higher though than the standard that the Ella issue presents which is the attempted interception of a fertilized egg from implantation. To me, once the egg is fertilized it IS a human being who truly bears the image of God and is precious no matter how infinitesimal. Human intervention to thwart its implantation is abortion. To support the prescribed use of Ella you must regard the fertilized egg as unwanted debris, an inconvenience, rather than a responsibility and gift from God. Playing fast and loose with the term abortion, I see. I suppose you think the 80 or so percent of fertilized eggs that don't make it to implantation without intervention of any sort could be considered miscarriages, too. WOW ! I had you wrongly pegged BB. Thought you were a smart guy. Guess you missed history classes so you could go toke a few. For the past 2,000 years it's been the teaching of the church that the destruction of a fertilized egg is considered abortion. Actually, this view precedes Christian dogma. It doesn't have to be implanted. Since the abortionists, which I assume you support, have come en masse in the past few decades they've decided to play "fast and loose with the term abortion" in order to make it more appealing. I absolutely agree with you ET! Anyone who doesn't believe what I believe, is stupid. They more than likely, have a long history of drug abuse. I would add, these types hate America. You just need to try reciprocating more of that "conservative empathy" he demonstrates. BS! You cant be soft on these librul tipes. Theys tryin to destroy America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 You can call the sky the ground if the name sky offends you, but that doesn't actually make the sky the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 12,021 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...It doesn't change the morality discussion.... Agreed. And I do understand your logic on the matter, which isn't bad. ...Call it 'miscarriage', 'failed implantation', or make up a whole new term for it if you like.... Very well. I'll start redefining widely accepted medical terminology to give it more emotional appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 21,583 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...It doesn't change the morality discussion.... Agreed. And I do understand your logic on the matter, which isn't bad. ...Call it 'miscarriage', 'failed implantation', or make up a whole new term for it if you like.... Very well. I'll start redefining widely accepted medical terminology to give it more emotional appeal. It's been happening, on both sides, for decades. Welcome to the fray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,468 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...It doesn't change the morality discussion.... Agreed. And I do understand your logic on the matter, which isn't bad. ...Call it 'miscarriage', 'failed implantation', or make up a whole new term for it if you like.... Very well. I'll start redefining widely accepted medical terminology to give it more emotional appeal. Well, do you want to have a rational discussion or, an emotional argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...My regard for innocent life is higher though than the standard that the Ella issue presents which is the attempted interception of a fertilized egg from implantation. To me, once the egg is fertilized it IS a human being who truly bears the image of God and is precious no matter how infinitesimal. Human intervention to thwart its implantation is abortion. To support the prescribed use of Ella you must regard the fertilized egg as unwanted debris, an inconvenience, rather than a responsibility and gift from God. Playing fast and loose with the term abortion, I see. I suppose you think the 80 or so percent of fertilized eggs that don't make it to implantation without intervention of any sort could be considered miscarriages, too. There is a difference between a miscarriage and a forced miscarriage. To conflate the two as if there's no distinction between a medication that can induce such a thing and that thing happening on its own would be like saying there's no difference in driving along and accidentally picking up a nail in your tire and someone tossing a box full of nails on to the road right in front of your car as you drive by. A fertilized egg that never implants is not a miscarriage. A fertilized egg is not a "baby" either so you are barking up a tree. Controlling the terminology is a neat way around the facts. I'm well aware of the efforts to control the terminology to make certain decisions more palatable. No, that's not true. There has never been an effort to change the technical terminology to make certain decisions more palatable. The "technical" terminology clearly evolved as a matter of science. It was never defined by the controversy of abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...My regard for innocent life is higher though than the standard that the Ella issue presents which is the attempted interception of a fertilized egg from implantation. To me, once the egg is fertilized it IS a human being who truly bears the image of God and is precious no matter how infinitesimal. Human intervention to thwart its implantation is abortion. To support the prescribed use of Ella you must regard the fertilized egg as unwanted debris, an inconvenience, rather than a responsibility and gift from God. Playing fast and loose with the term abortion, I see. I suppose you think the 80 or so percent of fertilized eggs that don't make it to implantation without intervention of any sort could be considered miscarriages, too. There is a difference between a miscarriage and a forced miscarriage. To conflate the two as if there's no distinction between a medication that can induce such a thing and that thing happening on its own would be like saying there's no difference in driving along and accidentally picking up a nail in your tire and someone tossing a box full of nails on to the road right in front of your car as you drive by. A fertilized egg that never implants is not a miscarriage. We're not using technical terminology here. The point was, there is a distinct difference in something that happens naturally without human intervention and something that is purposefully done to make it happen. If a fertilized egg doesn't implant on its own that's not a moral dilemma. If you deliberately do something to try and hopefully prevent it from implanting, it is. Why wouldn't a deliberate act to prevent fertilization be wrong morally? After all, some people believe exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...It doesn't change the morality discussion.... Agreed. And I do understand your logic on the matter, which isn't bad. ...Call it 'miscarriage', 'failed implantation', or make up a whole new term for it if you like.... Very well. I'll start redefining widely accepted medical terminology to give it more emotional appeal. It's been happening, on both sides, for decades. Welcome to the fray. Example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 You can call the sky the ground if the name sky offends you, but that doesn't actually make the sky the ground. That works both ways. The question here is which came first. In other words, who is doing the re-naming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,468 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...My regard for innocent life is higher though than the standard that the Ella issue presents which is the attempted interception of a fertilized egg from implantation. To me, once the egg is fertilized it IS a human being who truly bears the image of God and is precious no matter how infinitesimal. Human intervention to thwart its implantation is abortion. To support the prescribed use of Ella you must regard the fertilized egg as unwanted debris, an inconvenience, rather than a responsibility and gift from God. Playing fast and loose with the term abortion, I see. I suppose you think the 80 or so percent of fertilized eggs that don't make it to implantation without intervention of any sort could be considered miscarriages, too. There is a difference between a miscarriage and a forced miscarriage. To conflate the two as if there's no distinction between a medication that can induce such a thing and that thing happening on its own would be like saying there's no difference in driving along and accidentally picking up a nail in your tire and someone tossing a box full of nails on to the road right in front of your car as you drive by. A fertilized egg that never implants is not a miscarriage. We're not using technical terminology here. The point was, there is a distinct difference in something that happens naturally without human intervention and something that is purposefully done to make it happen. If a fertilized egg doesn't implant on its own that's not a moral dilemma. If you deliberately do something to try and hopefully prevent it from implanting, it is. Why wouldn't a deliberate act to prevent fertilization be wrong morally? After all, some people believe exactly that. Duh. It does not represent MY morality and therefore, doesn't matter. You need to stick to MY morality as the baseline or benchmark for the term morality. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 21,583 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Why wouldn't a deliberate act to prevent fertilization be wrong morally? After all, some people believe exactly that. Some people do. But there's a distinct difference between preventing a new life from starting vs ending one already begun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 21,583 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 No, that's not true. There has never been an effort to change the technical terminology to make certain decisions more palatable. The "technical" terminology clearly evolved as a matter of science. It was never defined by the controversy of abortion. The term fetus was used for centuries as synonymous with "offspring" or "baby." It's only in relatively recent history that it was used to distinguish between an unborn child and one who has been born. Even as recently as last year, the NY Times tried to stretch is definition to lessen the implications of what Kermit Gosnell was doing in his abortion clinic in Philly: http://www.dennyburk.com/ny-times-inaccurately-reports-on-the-gosnell-trial/ Another example of sanitizing terminology to lessen the impact of what's happening: "products of conception" Both sides shade language to further their aims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 21,583 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Duh. It does not represent MY morality and therefore, doesn't matter. You need to stick to MY morality as the baseline or benchmark for the term morality. Thank you. Um...both sides are arguing in favor of their morality. This isn't a situation where one side is morality-neutral and the other is trying to impose a morality on others. Both are trying to have their morality carry the day in our laws. The only question is whose morality are we going to adopt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,468 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Duh. It does not represent MY morality and therefore, doesn't matter. You need to stick to MY morality as the baseline or benchmark for the term morality. Thank you. Um...both sides are arguing in favor of their morality. This isn't a situation where one side is morality-neutral and the other is trying to impose a morality on others. Both are trying to have their morality carry the day in our laws. The only question is whose morality are we going to adopt. The obvious answer is mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.