gadgetlady

Quite frankly, I could care less, too. My point was that the Ritz-Carlton doesn't hire people like that and it's not illegal that they don't.

You're just a charmer, aren't you TommyO?

LOL! I love the Left, er, West Coast I don't ever want to leave.

Are you saying that when a mother is pregnant she has two sets of DNA? I'm confused. Obviously she is carrying the other being in her womb, but it IS a separate being in the sense that it is not HER, it is ITSELF.

But I thought NOBODY wanted to have an abortion? So how could I be driving them in droves with my arguments? If they didn't want to have one, nothing I argued would convince them otherwise. You're just being silly and contradicting yourself.

Thank you. I will read it later when I can better focus my attention.

I'd love to read about this. Can you point me to some studies? TIA!

Methinks you just like to argue. Facts are irrelevant to you as long as you can accuse or attempt to intimidate. I didn't name any particular scientist and call him a liar. I said "Any scientist who tells you that the inception of human being's life is at some time other than conception is lying, trying to evade the issue, or trying to support a political agenda." So can you demonstrate to me a time other than conception when, scientifically, a separate human being is created? Not "I think" or "people disagree", or "nobody knows", but scientifically -- when is the separate DNA of a separate person in evidence? Yup, I'm driving women to abortion clinics in droves with my arguments.

Welcome back! I thought you were too bored to continue. Why do I display arrogance and disrespect when I bring up scientific facts? I guess the real problem is you can't dispute my arguments so you fall back on attacking me with the ludicrous statement that I encourage abortions with my scientific facts.

That's a great point! Just because the doppler couldn't pick it up, does that mean it wasn't there? Just because we don't have a window to the womb, does that mean there isn't a baby?

Nice try. Science can clearly determine WHEN an entity separate from the mother is created. When the sperm and the egg join, a separate entity with its own DNA is created. There is absolutely no question about that. We can argue about whether that entity has value or not, or when it's viable, or when it should have rights (in fact, that's what we do argue about), but the scientific, undisputed fact is that the entity is a wholly separate being at that moment. Any scientist who tells you that the inception of human being's life is at some time other than conception is lying, trying to evade the issue, or trying to support a political agenda. You cannot start at birth, count backwards, and pinpoint something OTHER than conception as the time when that life began. Science cannot without question determine WHEN the earth (or the universe) began. We can't go back and study it every moment of every day. We can't put the earth under a microscope and pinpoint when the new DNA (or in the case of the earth, the components of its makeup) comes into existence. We CAN do that with human life. We DO do that with human life.

Uhhh, no. Because masturbation (by men OR women) and birth control don't STOP a beating heart.

I disagree. I think all scientists are clear about when life begins. I just think they disagree about when that life becomes valuable. And that's the crux of the matter -- why does one person's opinion decide the value of another's life?

You may call them outrageous claims and scenarios, but they are not. May I remind you that the proponents of infanticide are not the fringe elements of society. So what, pray tell, is outrageous about what they're saying? Why is it offensive? Or do you not find it offensive or wrong? I'll post their quotes and credentials again so it's easy for you to review and answer: “There is little evidence that termination of an infant’s life in the first few months following extraction from the womb could be looked upon as murder... It would seem to be more ‘inhumane’ to kill an adult chimpanzee than a newborn baby, since the chimpanzee has greater mental awareness. Murder cannot logically apply to a life form with less mental awareness than a primate.” Winston L. Duke Article: The New Biology Reason magazine, August 1972 “No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to life.” Dr. Francis Crick Nobel Prize winner Pacific News Service, January, 1978 “In our book, Should the Baby Live, my colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggested that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.” Peter Singer Professor of Bio-Ethics Princeton University “It is reasonable to describe infanticide as post-natal abortion... Infanticide is actually a very humane thing when you are dealing with misbegotten infants. We might have to encourage it under certain conditionalities of excess population especially when you’re dealing with defective children.” Joseph Fletcher Professor of Ethics Harvard Divinity School Infanticide and the Value of Life, Prometheus Books, 1978 “Infanticide has a logical continuity with abortion and even with contraception.” Edward Pohlman, Researcher Planned Parenthood Psychology of Birth Planning Shankman Publishing Cambridge MA, 1967 “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice that only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering.” Dr. James D. Watson Nobel Prize winner Time magazine, May 28, 1973

I think the laws should be based on a scientific definition of human life. It is very clear when human life begins: when conception occurs, and a completely separate being begins developing, with separate DNA from the mother.

Very, very true, but if you go to the Ritz-Carlton you don't expect your concierge to have a nose ring and pink hair. And I doubt the Ritz-Carlton would hire someone who did. They might be turning down a great employee, but they still wouldn't do it.

Great! Then let's legalize slavery, genocide, and infanticide -- just so long as we understand it should only be OK if the person committing the slavery, genocide, or infanticide justifies their position by saying the victim's life hasn't begun yet.

That's funny! BTW, lots of employers prevent their employees from wearing nose rings and having pink hair. As far as I know, it's perfectly legal. Oh -- and Hollywood discriminates all the time. They won't cast a black man in a white woman's role You'd think people as socially evolved as those in Hollywood would know better!

That's precisely why I don't believe the decision about abortion should be a "majority-wins" decision. I believe it should be based on the scientific facts about when human life begins. And if you base it on those facts (separate DNA, circulatory system, beating heart, etc.), then you get a decision independent of someone's whim. BTW, I do believe everyone should have complete control over their own reproductive organs. Use birth control, get sterilized, whatever. But when there are TWO sets of reproductive organs involved, the mother's and the baby's, then the mother has no right to interfere with the baby's. And yes, the unborn baby does have reproductive organs, even though they are not fully matured.

How about Hooter's refusing to hire fat women? Or an airline restricting the weight of their stewardesses to ensure that they fit down the aisle? What about businesses that tell their employees not to wear nose rings or dye their hair pink? And why the heck, darn it, won't my OB/GYN see men????? That's what I wanna know.

BJean, I think this might be the first thing you and I agree on 100%! I am perfectly happy when businesses who support something I disagree with flop, but that doesn't mean I think anyone has the right to shut them down.

Interesting stuff, Derick. Thanks for posting! Someone told me the other day that 100 years ago the average temp was 1 degree cooler than now. Perhaps in 1900 they were experiencing "Global Cooling" and we're just now getting back to what the temp should be.

I was just in Virginia Beach about 2 weeks ago! I'm in Orange County (CA), though, so we have Biola right here near us (aka Talbot Theological Seminary).

I'm not at all bitter. And there's a difference between having a debate with someone about the legal, moral, philosophical, scientific, and political issues involved and ministering to a scared, pregnant mother. Believe me, when I'm counseling someone who's considering abortion, I don't talk about slave ownership or infanticide. But it's perfectly acceptable in a forum such as this. Sorry you don't like it.

You are absolutely right. I cannot respect any opinion that holds it is acceptable to brutally rip the life away from another human being. Sorry 'bout that.