|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/21/2005 01:33:18 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
What truly amazes me about the religious right's - and your, Saj - viewpoints, is that they are hypersensitive to the "injustice" done to a lump of undifferentiated cells, while simultaneously callous to the death and suffering of real, bleeding innocent children in, say, Iraq.
The "Sanctity of Life" argument is a despicable hypocrisy, IMO. |
Right on!!
|
|
|
|
05/22/2005 01:56:05 AM · #27 |
"Which likely was, at the time of the harvest, in a state of genetic and phenotypic conformation as to be a FISH more than a human...... "
[[[ This shows your ignorance, do you not realize that famous drawing of fetal development going thru all the satges of animal development (fish, frog, etc) was false. and disproven several decades ago. *sheesh* The DNA/chromosomes determine that it would never be a fish.]]]
"while simultaneously callous to the death and suffering of real, bleeding innocent children in, say, Iraq."
[[[wake up...if we were so callous do you think we'd spend a $1 million per bomb so that they would do the least anount of collateral damage and kill the fewest by-standers.
There is a difference between war and needless excuse for the irresponsible. ALL ISLAMIC nations of the middle-east contain a large number of aggressive populace. Everywhere that this violent and persistant part of Islam come in contact with other cultures there is conflict (Middle-east, Russia, India, Israel/Palestine, Indonesia, Phillipines, U.S.A, Spain, i could continue.) And when children are used as pawns for such individuals to hide behind - tragedy occurs. However it is not desired nor deliberate nor easily avoided. And you can look at the women and children dead in the WTC - unlike those who caused such, unborn children do not cause such. The aspect you refer to is usually, (more than 99.8%) done for the mere reason of irresponsibility.
Go to NYC....look and see....
And ask yourself...are you willing to end sexually provocative entertainment? are you willing to ban alcohol? are you willing to get rid of bands, loans and credit cards? well if not...realize that Al-quaeda, declares those are the things America needs to do to stop attacks. *shrug*
Yes, there are innoncents....and it's sad that innoncents need to be next to perpetrators, and die because of such proximity. The "right" never wants such as you say. But they're not going to just stop and do nothing. Do you have any "viable" altnernatives?
And once again, i point out that you keep making this an ad-hominem/red herring attack. And i'll point out that none of you have answered my question as to how to handle the issues for which i pointed out we need some definitive legislation for what will be technilogically feasible soon.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2005 02:15:46 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
I get extremely annoyed at those who play the "faith" card in all their arguments. And another poster who used the term "open-minded" regarding Canada. The definition of open-minded as most use it today can be translated "air-headed".
over & out. |
Perhaps if we all took a deep breath,,, pondered about this for a bit... we might discuss this issue in a civil manner.
I also do not like "faith" being the focal point of discussions of this nature... and by the same token don't particulary care to see a whole country being perceived as a collective of "air heads" simply because they opt to view things in a slightly different perspective.
Just a thought...
Ray |
|
|
|
05/22/2005 01:17:23 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"Which likely was, at the time of the harvest, in a state of genetic and phenotypic conformation as to be a FISH more than a human...... "
[[[ This shows your ignorance, do you not realize that famous drawing of fetal development going thru all the satges of animal development (fish, frog, etc) was false. and disproven several decades ago. *sheesh* The DNA/chromosomes determine that it would never be a fish.]]] |
Saj, the only references I can find which state that Haekels theorum is considered "false" are those affiliated with creation science sites.
So, perhaps your (ad hominem) reference to me, not my argument, as being "ignorant" is not justified??
BTW, while Haekels EXACT ideas about the nuances of embryology have been challenged, and his ideas have been eclipsed into better models, his basic argument that "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is still considered a demonstrably true tenet. The argument is merely over strict definition of what "recapitulate" should be.
But the fact remains that at certain timepoints human embryos DO resemble those of fishes, replete with gills, notochords, etc. There are plenty of (non-creationistic) academic websites with microphotographs and text galore on this.
Originally posted by theSaj:
"while simultaneously callous to the death and suffering of real, bleeding innocent children in, say, Iraq."
[[[wake up...if we were so callous do you think we'd spend a $1 million per bomb so that they would do the least anount of collateral damage and kill the fewest by-standers. |
Again, I would call attention to the "Sanctity of Life" argument you use to argue that the "risks" of therapeutic cloning are unjutified because " we NEED to protect human life", and the curiously callous arguments you make here that 100,000 dead Iraqi women and children are justifiable "collateral damage".
Perhaps if we spent 2 million, not 1 million per bomb, we could then justfy slaughtering 200,000 innocent people?
Originally posted by theSaj:
And ask yourself...are you willing to end sexually provocative entertainment? are you willing to ban alcohol? are you willing to get rid of bands, loans and credit cards? well if not...realize that Al-quaeda, declares those are the things America needs to do to stop attacks. *shrug* |
Saj,
Please explain to this ignorant one, what in the blue blazes Al-Queda is doing in your argument justifying the U.S. invasion of IRAQ?
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11! Even Bush himself has said so publicly.
Have you missed the recent smoking gun evidence from Britain, the published books by Bush's own staff, the documented timelines of U.S. miltary logistics, all of which prove that Bush planned the invasion of Iraq BEFORE 9/11, and doctored any intelligence to "prove" lies to the world about it?
How can a justification for the slaughter of Iraqi children rely on a reference to Al-queda and 9/11, when they are related only by lies?
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 10:36:23 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 10:36:23 AM EDT.
|
