"Actually, there's plenty"
Do you have information for that? To the best of my knowledge, there is no technology in existence which can prove or disprove when life begins.
Take care all.
"Actually, there's plenty"
Do you have information for that? To the best of my knowledge, there is no technology in existence which can prove or disprove when life begins.
Take care all.
While it is indeed not proven either way, there is indeed evidence that life begins, if not at the point of conception, than soon after. And certainly, doesn't an infant deserve the benefit of the doubt if anyone does?Do you have information for that? To the best of my knowledge, there is no technology in existence which can prove or disprove when life begins.
It still is. :D You just have company....I told you guys all about this when I mentioned the project for the new american century a while back. Of course, that is all just a conspiracy theory. Uh huh...
I also support Bush. I'm conservative, I'm a proponent of the Iraq war, and if war with Iran ever happens I'll be (quite correctly) saying "Hell, I said we shoulda done this years ago!". I also think that the US ought to invade North Korea, Myanmar, and Sudan, for starters, and cut off all trade with China until they drop their one-child forced-abortion policy, quit using slave labor, and otherwise generally acknowledge that their citizens are human beings. That doesn't mean that Bush is planning to do any or all these things. I'd like to note, once more, that suggestions from a supporter do not a conspiracy make.(I would like to add, once more, that those who take part in the project for a new american century all support Bush, they are all conservatives, and they are all proponents of the Iraq war, and they will all be proponents of the war with Iran when it happens. These guys in no way have any "liberal bias".)
I'd feel more comforable believing your source if there was a credible medical backing as a part of it. From the looks of it, it was a report filed by someone with no actual medical degree or background, which to me, makes it just another opinion, and not hard evidence.
I'm not doubting your beliefs, but my beliefs are strengthened by the fact that no actual scientific evidence from the medical community has proven conclusively one way or the other.
Take care all.
Seeing as it's a cited report from a university, I thought it sufficient, but here's one from a rather well-renowned geneticist.'d feel more comforable believing your source if there was a credible medical backing as a part of it.
And may or may not ever be--especially since there will always be a few scientists or doctors out there to which "conclusively" means "enough to convince OJ's jury". But again, shouldn't an infant have at least as much benefit of the doubt as convicted murderers?I'm not doubting your beliefs, but my beliefs are strengthened by the fact that no actual scientific evidence from the medical community has proven conclusively one way or the other.
More than the judge was, I hope.And thank god somebody is doing the right thing!
But then again, I am an evil, mindless liberal. After all, I am opposed to murder.
But even assuming you figure the overturning of the death sentence was a good thing on general principle, can you agree that "the jury may have read the Bible" is a bad method for coming to that decision?
Originally Posted by The Redneck
It still is.I told you guys all about this when I mentioned the project for the new american century a while back. Of course, that is all just a conspiracy theory. Uh huh...You just have company....
If you were to have read just page one you would realize that I am right. But I can understand why you don't. It really sucks when you realize you are wrong.
Maybe I just don't follow you... I don't understand your argument here.And may or may not ever be--especially since there will always be a few scientists or doctors out there to which "conclusively" means "enough to convince OJ's jury". But again, shouldn't an infant have at least as much benefit of the doubt as convicted murderers?
Oh yeah, and last I checked, OJ was not a convicted murderer.
"shouldn't an infant have at least as much benefit of the doubt as convicted murderers?"
That depends on what you define as an "infant". I don't believe an egg and sperm to be an infant. Yet, I think there should be a law that makes abortions after the first 3 months, which is when science CAN prove that life exists, illegal, so we can agree there at least.
That new page you cited had a very obvious agenda, unfortunately. It's getting harder and harder to find any evidence that is without an agenda these days, but again, I can't really completely credit a source that is linked to a page with an obvious opinion and not a scientific one.
Take care all.
Why not just a simple test -- If it has EEG waves and a heartbeat, it's a baby, and therefore should be protected.
And as requested an unbiased source. I love Biology.
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html
Actually, I read several pages of it, and I say again--because somebody says Bush ought to do it doesn't mean Bush has some ultra-top-secret conspiracy to do it. If he does, then I hope he gets around to banning rap music soon, because I want him to do that, and since I support Bush, that must mean that's somewhere in his conspiracy plans.If you were to have read just page one you would realize that I am right. But I can understand why you don't. It really sucks when you realize you are wrong.
That if you can't be sure whether an unborn child is a living human being or a simple mass of tissue, or the rights/lack of them he/she is entitled to, then I believe the benefit of the doubt should to go not killing a child.Maybe I just don't follow you... I don't understand your argument here.
And last ~I~ checked, he was still obviously a murderer, no matter how well the race-card worked. (and let's face it, OJ walked because Fuhrman used the n-word ten years before.)Oh yeah, and last I checked, OJ was not a convicted murderer.
"And last ~I~ checked, he was still obviously a murderer, no matter how well the race-card worked. (and let's face it, OJ walked because Fuhrman used the n-word ten years before.)"
While you're certainly entitled to your opinion and many people share it, we must all at the end of the day listen to what the law says with regard to issues such as these, otherwise the system collapses.
Just to point out, OJ WAS found guilty in a civil law suit and had to pay millions of dollars with regard to these deaths, but as the system works, he is NOT a murderer.
Take care all.
Herein, I disagree. OJ is not a convicted murderer, but our justice system was set up, and deliberately so, so that it sometimes lets the guilty go free. It sucks, but it's a trade-off--better to sometimes let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent, and while we can argue about whether or not we let the guilty go free too often or for flimsy reasons, there are many, many cases in which someone was obviously guilty yet wasn't punished. The murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman (I think that was the guy's name...) is just one of those.ust to point out, OJ WAS found guilty in a civil law suit and had to pay millions of dollars with regard to these deaths, but as the system works, he is NOT a murderer.
Your point is well taken. All I'm saying is that at the end of the day, in order for the system to work, we have to have some faith in it that it does work, whether we agree with the outcome or not. OJ was a landmark case, but there have been many others where seemingly insurmountable evidence ended up not being enough for a conviction or the evidence turned out to be false.
Take care all.
You could say I have friends in the military too. Most of them, especially those who've been in Iraq, realize what's really happening, and that it's not that we're just going to find more and more places to invade.
And yes, nik0tine, we've all heard your "America is trying to take over and/or control the world" argument.
First of all, we're establishing permanent basis in Iraq, and drawing out of our permanent basis in Germany, because we no longer need to be in Germany and we do need to be in Iraq. Is it really that hard to understand? I highly doubt we'll have a massive force in Iraq for a long time--we're already starting to pull troops out--but we will have an established presence there for a while, until they get a stable government set up and longer. This doesn't mean it's to stage to invade somebody else ('cause you know, those damn Republicans aren't happy unless they're at war with somebody, right?), this doesn't mean that any of the ridiculous and completely false "blood-for-oil" arguments are anywhere near true, it means that Iraq needs to be stabilized and they need a military presence there until that happens.
Second of all, if and when we do invade Iran, we could go though Afghanistan, as The Redneck pointed out. Or, we could stage a bombardment in Kuwait, then march a bit through Iraq on the way there. Or, depending on the support we have from other countries surrounding Iran, we could find another country to launch attacks out of. Iraq is not an extremely strategic location, unless we're planning to invade and take over the entire Middle East--which, though such a ridiculous notion is believed by some, isn't practical or logical in the least bit. In short, whatever we need to do, we can do without Iraq.
Last, but certainly not least... We did not "accidentally" blow things up. When you have missiles that can find and go through windows, it's hard to miss. There's certain infrastructure that needs to be taken out of commission for a short time, but is then rebuilt, and at this point more people in Iraq have simple things like electricity, running water, sewers, and phones than any point in the last thirty years.
Iraq's a big place, it can be used as a good staging ground for a lot of troops, especially if they want to pincer Iran. I stand by my comment.
Second of all, if and when we do invade Iran, we could go though Afghanistan, as The Redneck pointed out. Or, we could stage a bombardment in Kuwait, then march a bit through Iraq on the way there. Or, depending on the support we have from other countries surrounding Iran, we could find another country to launch attacks out of. Iraq is not an extremely strategic location, unless we're planning to invade and take over the entire Middle East--which, though such a ridiculous notion is believed by some, isn't practical or logical in the least bit. In short, whatever we need to do, we can do without Iraq.
No, I've a firsthand source (which makes me secondhand I guess) that was giving out reparations. We HAVE blown up stuff accidentally, cars, buildings, what have you. We ARE paying that back. Also, my sources tell me that they are not by any means a third world country, they have had electricity, running water, sewer, phones, and the internet long before we came there. Again, I stand by my comment.Last, but certainly not least... We did not "accidentally" blow things up. When you have missiles that can find and go through windows, it's hard to miss. There's certain infrastructure that needs to be taken out of commission for a short time, but is then rebuilt, and at this point more people in Iraq have simple things like electricity, running water, sewers, and phones than any point in the last thirty years.
'Cuz we need four square miles per soldier when we muster troops--we use real loose formations in the Army....Iraq's a big place, it can be used as a good staging ground for a lot of troops, especially if they want to pincer Iran. I stand by my comment.
Can we see some of these sources? Because I'm sorry, but if you're trying to tell me that the Iraqi people are worse off for Sodom's removal, the only proper reply is a loud, derisive laugh.Also, my sources tell me that they are not by any means a third world country, they have had electricity, running water, sewer, phones, and the internet long before we came there. Again, I stand by my comment.
And sorry, Sasquatch, but some of the missiles do miss--especially with the GPS-jamming devices that Sodom purchased from the Russians... which also explains why they didn't want us in there looking around. Our cruise missiles and smart bombs certainly aren't anything like the SCUD (Which I still believe Sam Kinison described best: "You see, the SCUD is kinda like the smart bomb. You launch it from the trunk of your car--fssssst!--and then you go home and turn on CNN to see where it landed!" Seriously, these things actually missed Saudi Arabia once. That's not exactly a small target.), but occasionally they do miss.
Bases to house troops and supply them, however, take a bit more space. And again, a pincer attack is what I suspect will happen, it's not exactly a new military tactic to crush an opponent between two hostile forces.'Cuz we need four square miles per soldier when we muster troops--we use real loose formations in the Army....
I can quote my friends, but I will not post their name on a website. If such is needed, I will post their ranks in the military.Can we see some of these sources? Because I'm sorry, but if you're trying to tell me that the Iraqi people are worse off for Sodom's removal, the only proper reply is a loud, derisive laugh.
And thank you for putting words in my mouth, I never said that they were better off with Sadam in power (and I find it interesting that you've spelled his name like the city of Sodom, from whence the word "Sodomy" originates), I am merely making the point that they are hardly a third world country. They've had technology in their lives before we got there, and they are one of if not the most liberal Muslim nations, having adapted quite well to American culture. As I understand it most of the Iraqis love us, it's the Jordanians, Iranians, and others who are coming across the border that are trying to kill us. The point I am trying to make is that on occassion we've destroyed Iraqi property, and we ARE paying for it.
Posting Permissions
:temigi: 