It's above my paygrade

[avatar4321]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VRswgN-Wf6g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VRswgN-Wf6g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

What an answer.... This is ridiculous.

[Yurt]

true, but how many believe only what he said after...if they can figure it out, which of course they can, because it suits their beliefs

[manu1959]

what a fucking moron take a stance.....grow a pair....

[crin63]

"Above my paygrade" what a moron! And this guy wants to be our president, what a wimp. He won't even answer truthfully about his radical position on abortion. He's probably waiting for McCain to tell him how to answer just like with Georgia.

That statement should be the next McCain ad with the stuttering to try and figure out how to spin after.

[stephanie]

Just HOW MANY truly pathetic losers are the Democrats going to continue to pick for President..??


Good Gawd..it's not even any more fun, making fun of them anymore...:coffee:

[avatar4321]

"Above my paygrade" what a moron! And this guy wants to be our president, what a wimp. He won't even answer truthfully about his radical position on abortion. He's probably waiting for McCain to tell him how to answer just like with Georgia.

That statement should be the next McCain ad with the stuttering to try and figure out how to spin after.

McCain's answer for the question was much better than Obama's answer. Senator Obama stated that it was above his paygrade. Well Senator McCain knew the answer and he summed it up nicely in two words: At Conception.

[PostmodernProphet]

was it above his paygrade to vote against providing survival care to children accidentally born during a botched abortion?.......

[Kathianne]

If I understood his basic reason for being 'pro-choice' it was because women do not reach the decision casually.

Sounds like a pretty good logic for several arguments for murder, such as 'battered woman syndrome'.

[red states rule]

The messiah, known as Obama, is always ready with a firm and definite maybe

[AFbombloader]

I really love the way he dodged the second part of the question. "Have you ever voted to support legislation to reduce the number of abortions?" Typical tapdancing! And to try deflect the topic to Bush! Just once I would like an answer to a question.

AF:salute:

[Kathianne]

Hanson has a very good analysis of last night's interviews, as they surely weren't 'debates'. If they were, I think the contest would be over. McCain showed a seriousness that Obama is not capable of now, if ever:

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/a-not-very-driven-interview/

As always, Hanson makes connections from the present to the past:


...

A Purpose Driven Obama on Justice Thomas

In tonight’s Rick Warren interview, I don’t know why Obama chooses to insult a Supreme Court Justice at a religious forum, but his comments that Justice Thomas was not qualified to be on the Court were revealing. Why would Obama think, given his own credentials, that he was better qualified for President than Clarence Thomas was for the Supreme Court?

As far as working at University of Chicago Law School, the real question is how is it that Obama, without any major publications, would be qualified to teach law at Chicago? There were literally thousands of law professors who would not be hired at Chicago, even as adjuncts, who had far more impressive records of scholarship than did Barack Obama. His other comments on the Court were incoherent: Roberts gave away too much power to the executive branch—but no examples follow as evidence (especially not the FISA laws!). Scalia is bright (after all, he taught at Obama’s Chicago, we are told), but he too shouldn’t have been appointed.

More on the Warren Interview—St. Nuance

One is struck by Obama’s postmodern worldview. There are no absolutes, just nuances and contexts that preclude certainty. Evil for Obama: “A lot of evil’s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil.” Could he be specific where we have perpetrated “a lot of evil?”

Again, the gut instinct for Obama—whether talking about our “tragic history”, or the need for more “oppression studies” or evoking our sins in front of the Germans—is always to start out with the premise of a flawed America, rather than appreciation of the vast difference between us and the alternative. Never a word here about evil abroad, or bin Laden or Dr. Zawahiri. No, instead, we need humility about that “lot of evil” perpetrated by you know whom.

Somehow he is pro-choice, but anti-abortion, for man/woman marriage, but not in the legal sense, not for merit pay, but for rewarding good teachers—all this is in the manner he was against the Russians and for them while for and against the Georgians. His mushy responses were emblematic of the therapeutic style—empathy with everyone, judgment on no-one. We may soon be back to Jimmy Carter, paralyzed how to divvy up the White House Tennis Courts among feuding subordinates. He can’t say much pro or con on abortion, other than there is an ethical and moral element to the issue. And any of you who deny that, well are just darn wrong. He is against late-term abortion— but only if the mother’s life is in danger. And so on.

After watching some of this, I don’t think Obama will be having many town hall debates with McCain. However undeniable his calm and presence, he is simply incapable of extemporizing. A written transcript of this interview would be embarrassing, since it would be largely streams of meandering—and, but that, ah, you know, that, and, with uh, uh, I don’t think, ah, ah, that, that, I think, that, that, on, on, an issue…”


...

[Nukeman]

Way to take a stand............almost:laugh2:


Remember folks this is the man who voted against medical care for babies who servive an abortion attempt.

[Abbey Marie]

I really love the way he dodged the second part of the question. "Have you ever voted to support legislation to reduce the number of abortions?" Typical tapdancing! And to try deflect the topic to Bush! Just once I would like an answer to a question.

AF:salute:

We will have to look to his meager voting record and who he chooses to associate with for our answers. On the topic of abortion, as pmp mentioned above, he voted against medical treatment for aborted babies born-alive. That tells us all we need to know about Obama on abortion.

[red states rule]

Way to take a stand............almost:laugh2:


Remember folks this is the man who voted against medical care for babies who servive an abortion attempt.

but the supports the rights of terrorists and convicted killers

He has his liberal priorities straight

[Missileman]

McCain's answer for the question was much better than Obama's answer. Senator Obama stated that it was above his paygrade. Well Senator McCain knew the answer and he summed it up nicely in two words: At Conception.

Obama's answer was cowardly...McCain's was no less so.

[Gaffer]

Obama's answer was cowardly...McCain's was no less so.

How was McCain's answer cowardly?

[Missileman]

How was McCain's answer cowardly?

Drawing the line at conception isn't drawing a line at all. He can't possibly believe that a fertilized egg deserves rights...it's a ridiculous notion.

[stephanie]

Drawing the line at conception isn't drawing a line at all. He can't possibly believe that a fertilized egg deserves rights...it's a ridiculous notion.

If it's so ridiculous, why is it that so many people believe it does start at conception..

[Gaffer]

Drawing the line at conception isn't drawing a line at all. He can't possibly believe that a fertilized egg deserves rights...it's a ridiculous notion.

He said he believes that. That's not cowardly. Whether it's correct or not is where the arguments are on going. He didn't himhaw or dance around the question, he answered straight forward what he believes. That's not cowardly.

Where is your line drawn?

[theHawk]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VRswgN-Wf6g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VRswgN-Wf6g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

What an answer.... This is ridiculous.

What a sack of shit. All he did was dance around the questions.
:pee: Barry

[Missileman]

If it's so ridiculous, why is it that so many people believe it does start at conception..

For the same reason billions of people believe in their god. I'll wager you don't believe all those people who have a different deity than yours are right.

[stephanie]

For the same reason billions of people believe in their god. I'll wager you don't believe all those people who have a different deity than yours are right.

Okey dokie..:rolleyes:

[PostmodernProphet]

Drawing the line at conception isn't drawing a line at all. He can't possibly believe that a fertilized egg deserves rights...it's a ridiculous notion.

actually, it's the most logical point to recognize that a human being has begun to exist.....

[Missileman]

He said he believes that. That's not cowardly. Whether it's correct or not is where the arguments are on going. He didn't himhaw or dance around the question, he answered straight forward what he believes. That's not cowardly.

Where is your line drawn?

The development of the brain and rest of the organs sufficient to enable viability outside the womb.

[PostmodernProphet]

For the same reason billions of people believe in their god. I'll wager you don't believe all those people who have a different deity than yours are right.

I can guarantee you that I don't believe some arbitrarily chosen time for admitting a fetus is a living human being is a better choice than conception.....

[retiredman]

what a fucking moron take a stance.....grow a pair....


take a stance? pretend you can know the workings of God? How preesumptious. No one KNOWS when God breathes life and a soul into a fetus, except God.

[red states rule]

take a stance? pretend you can know the workings of God? How preesumptious. No one KNOWS when God breathes life and a soul into a fetus, except God.

Try at conception. It is not a fetus preacher man, it is a BABY

Also, Obama supports tossing a living breathing BABY who survives an abortion into the trash can

Nothing like liberal compassion, eh?

[Sitarro]

I wonder if he has stuttered his whole life or just when someone else hasn't written something for him to say and he doesn't have a teleprompter to read it.

[red states rule]

I wonder if he has stuttered his whole life or just when someone else hasn't written something for him to say and he doesn't have a teleprompter to read it.

You mean like this?


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eDJSVPAx8xc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eDJSVPAx8xc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Sitarro]

take a stance? pretend you can know the workings of God? How preesumptious. No one KNOWS when God breathes life and a soul into a fetus, except God.

What a cute, abstract, preacher like answer...... bullshit, but cute. You have an e too many and an i instead of a u in presumptuous...... does that mean you are illiterate or just careless.

[Sitarro]

You mean like this?


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eDJSVPAx8xc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eDJSVPAx8xc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

what a great orator, not, he wouldn't qualify as a used car salesman. I don't believe him and he doesn't believe himself.

[red states rule]

what a great orator, not, he wouldn't qualify as a used car salesman. I don't believe him and he doesn't believe himself.

Without his script, his teleprompter, and his reheared answers - he has very little to offer

[Missileman]

take a stance? pretend you can know the workings of God? How preesumptious. No one KNOWS when God breathes life and a soul into a fetus, except God.

Muddying up the waters with supernatural mumbo-jumbo isn't going to accomplish anything.

[stephanie]

But of course...how ignorant of all of us who consider our children to begin at conseption...

Them liberals REALLY KNOW when it is, and we is just too stupid to grasp that..:poke::rolleyes:

[red states rule]

But of course...how ignorant of all of us who consider our children to begin at conseption...

Them liberals REALLY KNOW when it is, and we is just too stupid to grasp that..:poke::rolleyes:

or to arrogant to admit it Stephanie

[-Cp]

Drawing the line at conception isn't drawing a line at all. He can't possibly believe that a fertilized egg deserves rights...it's a ridiculous notion.

The question is another way of asking "When does Human life begin"?

If not at conception, then where does it start dude? Human life can't just "happen" out of nowhere or from some inanimate object.... HELLO?

[-Cp]

Drawing the line at conception isn't drawing a line at all. He can't possibly believe that a fertilized egg deserves rights...it's a ridiculous notion.

When does Life Begin? Dr. Fritz provides an answer:

When does life begin?

Some people claim that our human lives really do not begin at fertilization, and that a more realistic time for the dignity of "humanity" to be imparted on a growing blastocyst-embryo would be about a week after fertilization, about the time of implantation.

It does not change things that in centuries past, some great Catholic theologians and philosophers differed on when precisely a biological entity becomes infused with a human soul. St. Thomas Aquinas, using the limited scientific knowledge of the 13th century, followed Aristotle that the conception of a male child was completed at day 40, and that of the female child at the 90th day, with replacement of the embryo's “nutritive soul” by a human soul. The Venerable Maria de Agreda, a 17th-century visionary, wrote that human "ensoulment" occurs at different times for boys and girls, and that it occurs at a time later than fertilization.

I am not a philosopher or theologian but a student of medicine and surgery. I can speak to you with authority that from a pure, unadulterated biological and embryological standpoint, there is no greater pivotal moment in our growth and development than when 23 chromosomes from our father join with 23 chromosomes from our mother to form a unique, new biologic entity who heretofore simply had not existed.

This new biological individual is complete, has a gender, and is fully and uniquely programmed and equipped to grow and develop and change until death. All he or she needs is nutrition and a warm place to grow. To say that an embryo has the "potential" to become a human being is biologically and technically imprecise – and dangerous.

Perhaps even more dangerous is the concept that it is not a precise moment, but a gradation of human worth. With this model, a preborn baby at 3 months is somewhat of a human being, but a newborn is more of a human being.

So -- is a 10-year-old boy or girl more a human being than a 1-year-old? Is a politician or athlete more a human being than a wheelchair-bound paraplegic? Can we really stratify intrinsic human dignity and worth? Is human equality a myth? This sort of thinking forms the basis for demeaning entire classes of people. Ultimately, it denies them their humanity. The 20th century gave ample evidence of the depravity of such thinking.

It is not “potential to become a person” that entitles a human embryo to legal and moral status. It is part of the fabric of natural and biological law that the human embryo’s actuality of being human entitles him or her to legal and moral status (8).

A researcher in Science, in response to the question, "When does human life begin?" responded, "I cannot answer that question." (9) This answer, coming from a researcher who has no problem with advocating human embryonic cloning and stem cell research, does not absolve him of the moral question arising from the research he proposes. Such an attitude is, at the very least, reckless and irresponsible.

What embryologists say

The majority of input in discussions of early human embryonic life often comes from philosophers, politicians, theologians, and the biotechnology industry, yet human embryologists are the most qualified to scientifically respond to the crucial questions at hand. But all too often they are glaringly omitted from the discussion. The developmental geneticist Jerome Lejeune (1926-1994), discoverer of the chromosomal basis for Down’s Syndrome, stated:

"…each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception … As soon as the 23 chromosomes carried by the sperm encounter the 23 chromosomes carried by the ovum, the whole information necessary and sufficient to spell out all the characteristics of the new being is gathered … a new human being is defined which has never occurred before and will never occur again … [it] is not just simply a non-descript cell, or a ‘population’ or loose ‘collection’ of cells, but a very specialized individual …" (10).

Dr. Kischer, emeritus professor of Anatomy at the University of Arizona, writes, "…the first thing learned in human embryology [is] that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception)" (11). He continues, "we should respect a microscopic human embryo because at that time it is an integrated whole organism, just as the human is at every moment in time until death. Every human embryo deserves as much respect as you or I because it is formed as a new individual human life within the continuum of life …" To deny this, Kischer says, is "a trivialization and corruption of the science of human embryology."

And textbooks after textbooks of human embryology agree. The embryology textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed., by Moore et al., 1998, notes that so-called emergency contraceptive pills (i.e., "morning-after pills") “prevent implantation, not fertilization. Consequently, they should not be called contraceptive pills … Because the term abortion refers to a premature stoppage of a pregnancy, the term ‘abortion’ could be applied to such an early termination of pregnancy." It further states, "The intricate process by which a baby develops from a single cell is miraculous … A zygote is the beginning of a new human being." Bruce Carlson’s 1994 textbook Human Embryology and Developmental Biology states, "Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and sperm … Finally, the fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its way into the uterus.”

The official U.S. Public Health Service Policy defines abortion as follows: "All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote anytime between the instant of fertilization and the completion of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion" (12).

Unscientific claims

What scientific or logical reasoning would the biotechnology industry posit to suggest it is uterine implantation that confers humanity on an embryo? How does the adherence of a new being to the lining of the uterus define humanity? Would a full-term infant who developed entirely ex-utero in an artificial womb not be "human"?

Scientific rigor does not always correlate with the convenience of an industry or the convenience of society. It takes an appalling rejection of science and biology to deny the humanity of the human embryo.

In the January 2002 issue of Scientific American, a board of outside ethicists assembled by Advanced Cell Technology posited that, “At the blastocyst stage, when the organism is typically disaggregated [destroyed] to create an embryonic stem cell line, it is a ball of cells no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence." So, then, size is a determinant of humanity? Not very scientific!

In fact, from a biological and embryological standpoint, that statement is utterly inane and drenched in absurdity. True, there is an apparent difference between a baby and a microscopic cluster of undifferentiated cells. But, indeed, over time in any individual, all the qualities of life change: their size, form, function, and appearance. We can reduce any point in time in an individual’s development to a trivial value by comparing that point to any other reference point we might choose.

It is a mere pop-culture form of science -- or philosophy, or theology -- swaying in the breeze, which justifies itself with public opinion instead of with rigorous scientific reasoning.

Such man-made determinations of when human life begins are arbitrary, nebulous, and self-serving. They are devoid of critical science and biological reality. The philosophy of the primitive streak or embryonic implantation as somehow imparting humanity was championed in the 1970's by some philosophers and theologians, but since then it has been completely discredited from an embryological and biological standpoint.

No such thing as “pre-embryo”

The false term "pre-embryo" was invented by Clifford Grobstein and Richard McCormick, S.J., in 1979.Grobstein -- a frog embryologist -- and Fr. McCormick acknowledged that there is a human being before 14 days. But they said there was no human individual yet, and therefore no "person,” because before 14 days twins may form (two individuals). Also, they claimed only the inner layer of the 4-7-day blastocyst will become a human adult, because the outer layer is "all discarded" after birth. Therefore, they asserted that before 14 days, there is only a "pre-embryo" (a "potential person"); after 14 days, twinning cannot take place and only then is there definitely an "individual,” and therefore an existing "person" entitled to ethical and legal rights and protections.

We will refute those claims in a moment. But first, let us note that human embryologists have rejected the term "pre-embryo.” For example, it was labeled "inaccurate and unscientific" by Ronan O'Rahilly. (He sits on the international Nomina Embryologica board, which determines the terminology to be used in classifying human embryology.) In his textbook on human embryology, O’Rahilly repudiates the term "pre-embryo.” Others, too, have brought the term under fire.

Lately, the term “pre-embryo” has been more or less avoided because of its sloppiness. But the damage has been done. What was meant to be conveyed – the false notion that the “product” of fertilization or cloning is not yet a human being or embryo, and therefore may licitly be killed in biological experiments, remains rampantly and naively accepted.

What is more, the biotechnology industry, rather than "naively accepting" the premise, appears instead to be mischievously promoting this discredited biology to drape some guise of an ethical framework over their experimentation (human embryonic stem cell research, cloning, etc). Human embryologists, however, reject the premise.

We now hear substitute phrases such as "pre-implantation" embryo, as well as unacceptable embryological jargon such as that "the human embryo does not begin until two weeks after fertilization.” Whatever arbitrary label is used, the aim is to convince others -- based on a complete absence of support from biology – that only a "potential" human being is there.

The authoritative scientific conclusion from human embryology is that a human embryo is a human being from fertilization on. Grobstein and Fr. McCormick based their conclusions on frog biology! But unlike frogs, human embryos do not divide synchronously, and the two layers of the human blastocyst are in fact interactive. Furthermore, some of the cells of the outer layer are retained after birth, and they form blood cells and other tissues. The whole human blastocyst is a human being, not just the inside part.

The twinning argument, supposedly "delaying" personhood for 14 days, is also scientifically misleading, because twinning can also take place after 14 days. In identical twinning, one individual human being (the early human embryo) divides, asexually, in a manner with some analogy to cloning. Thus from one individual, biologically speaking, another individual splits off, resulting in two individuals, or twins.

Actual human beings, not “potential”

There is no point from fertilization until death when, biologically, the human nature of that human being is altered. That human being continuously creates specifically human enzymes and, once formed, is on a path to grow and develop in the natural course of human growth. As we’ve said, all he or she needs is nutrition and a warm place to grow.

The bottom line is that in terms of biology and human embryology, a human being begins immediately at fertilization and after that, there is no point along the continuous line of human embryogenesis where only a "potential" human being can be posited. Any philosophical, legal, or political conclusion cannot escape this objective scientific fact.

And if philosophy must be invoked at all, then at a bare minimum the philosophy should match the correct scientific facts. Strict adherence to science alone will preclude denial of personhood to the unique creation -- the human being -- constructed at fertilization, and public policy should reflect this.

Ugly, but consistent, analogies can be made between the refusal to recognize the earliest stages of the human embryo by parsing the meaning of "human being,” and the “Aryan” ideology of the Third Reich. Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, the mentally incapacitated, and -- almost but not quite -- Catholic priests were considered to be Untermenschen, i.e., "sub-human,” and hence Lebens unwertenleben, or “lives unworthy to live.” Unbelievably, 70 years later we find another parallel of history among human early embryos. These embryos have been devalued via an argument of reductio ad absurdum.

Every human embryologist worldwide states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. No human embryologist has ever described human life as "potential" human life. Thus, killing the embryo -- by harvesting embryonic stem cells, by using abortifacient contraceptives, by committing so-called therapeutic cloning, or by flushing spare in-vitro fertilization embryos down the sink -- takes that human life. However, a mantra has been created, supported for decades by a faction of philosophers and theologians, which promotes a new Weltanschauung (a view of life). This was Adolf Hitler's favorite word (13), and embodied within it was his concept of “racial purity” and his mission to purge the unwanted.

http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html

[red states rule]

Since we are talking about babies, I think this would be a great shirt for parents to wear


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3119/2772254230_b2d82f79d4_o.jpg

[Missileman]

The question is another way of asking "When does Human life begin"?

If not at conception, then where does it start dude? Human life can't just "happen" out of nowhere or from some inanimate object.... HELLO?

The question isn't "when does life begin?", it's "when during development does a fetus become a person?"

[retiredman]

What a cute, abstract, preacher like answer...... bullshit, but cute. You have an e too many and an i instead of a u in presumptuous...... does that mean you are illiterate or just careless.

careless. attacking spelling.... I guess you got nothin' else, eh?:lol:

It is a true statement.... NO ONE knows when God places the soul within the flesh, except God.

[manu1959]

The question isn't "when does life begin?", it's "when during development does a fetus become a person?"

since when does this argument hinge on the definition of "person"....

[red states rule]

careless. attacking spelling.... I guess you got nothin' else, eh?:lol:

It is a true statement.... NO ONE knows when God places the soul within the flesh, except God.


The soul is part of the package. I thought a "preacher" would know that

[Missileman]

But of course...how ignorant of all of us who consider our children to begin at conseption...

Them liberals REALLY KNOW when it is, and we is just too stupid to grasp that..:poke::rolleyes:

"it must be so cuz lots of folks believe it" is what was ignorant. That basis for an argument was proven fallacious by the deity example.

[Missileman]

since when does this argument hinge on the definition of "person"....

Rights are extended to persons.

[PostmodernProphet]

careless. attacking spelling.... I guess you got nothin' else, eh?:lol:

It is a true statement.... NO ONE knows when God places the soul within the flesh, except God.

so, it's your position that a person is not entitled to protection under the constitution unless God as placed a soul within them?.......does that mean atheists aren't covered under the constitution since they don't believe God provided their soul?......

[retiredman]

so, it's your position that a person is not entitled to protection under the constitution unless God as placed a soul within them?.......does that mean atheists aren't covered under the constitution since they don't believe God provided their soul?......


it is my position that when a clump of cells is bestowed with a soul by God is something mere mortals can only speculate about.

To claim certainty about issues that are unknowable is the height of arrogance.

[red states rule]

it is my position that when a clump of cells is bestowed with a soul by God is something mere mortals can only speculate about.

To claim certainty about issues that are unknowable is the height of arrogance.


Unreal. Libs call our troops baby killers but believe that allowing a woman to kill her unborn child is a constitutionally protected right.

[Abbey Marie]

take a stance? pretend you can know the workings of God? How preesumptious. No one KNOWS when God breathes life and a soul into a fetus, except God.

Jeremiah 1:5

5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

[retiredman]

Jeremiah 1:5

5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

that does not say that the soul is imparted to the ovum the instant it is penetrated by the sperm.

sorry.

[red states rule]

Jeremiah 1:5

5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

One would think a preacher would know his Bible

Great job Abbey

[Abbey Marie]

Btw, how can the Commander-in-Chief have anything but the highest pay grade? :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

that does not say that the soul is imparted to the ovum the instant it is penetrated by the sperm.

sorry.

You should spend more time with your Bible then insulting people here preacher man

[Abbey Marie]

that does not say that the soul is imparted to the ovum the instant it is penetrated by the sperm.

sorry.


If God knows me before I was even formed in the womb, then he has more than given me a soul- he actually knows me. Pretty damn hard to jusitfy aborting someone that God already knows, ey?

sorry.

[retiredman]

If God knows me before I was even formed in the womb, then he has more than given me a soul- he actually knows me. Pretty damn hard to jusitfy aborting someone that God already knows, ey?

sorry.


sorry. if he knows YOU before you were even formed, he knows YOU as a soul, not as a flesh and blood human. As I said, NO ONE knows when God places a soul into a fetus. NO ONE.

sorry.

[Missileman]

Jeremiah 1:5

5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

And there you have it. It's not a woman's baby, it's God's baby. And since it's an omniscient god, He knows that a woman is going to abort before she even gets pregnant yet makes her pregnant anyways...what's up with that?

[Abbey Marie]

sorry. if he knows YOU before you were even formed, he knows YOU as a soul, not as a flesh and blood human. As I said, NO ONE knows when God places a soul into a fetus. NO ONE.

sorry.

Now you're not even making sense. If He knows me as a soul before conception, then you admit we have a soul at conception.

Btw, your god sounds very small and limited.

sorry.

[red states rule]

Now you're not even making sense. If He knows me as a soul before conception, then you admit we have a soul at conception.

Btw, your god sounds very small and limited.

sorry.

Looks like a baby to me

http://babyblog.rumblenet.net/__oneclick_uploads/2008/04/34-wk-scan.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

And there you have it. It's not a woman's baby, it's God's baby. And since it's an omniscient god, He knows that a woman is going to abort before she even gets pregnant yet makes her pregnant anyways...what's up with that?

I know what you mean. That is one of the most unknowable aspects of faith, and very hard to decipher. Right now we, as C.S. Lewis said, see as through a glass, darkly. I look forward to learning all about it someday. :)

[retiredman]

Now you're not even making sense. If He knows me as a soul before conception, then you admit we have a soul at conception.

Btw, your god sounds very small and limited.

sorry.


I do not admit that we have a soul at conception. If one believes that the soul is separate and distinct from the body and can live on AFTER the body dies, one can certainly imagine that the soul is around BEFORE the body arrives, and when God decides to place the soul into the body is HIS business and not ours.

And I don't insult your God, don't insult mine.

[Abbey Marie]

I do not admit that we have a soul at conception. If one believes that the soul is separate and distinct from the body and can live on AFTER the body dies, one can certainly imagine that the soul is around BEFORE the body arrives, and when God decides to place the soul into the body is HIS business and not ours.

And I don't insult your God, don't insult mine.

These were your words:

if he knows YOU before you were even formed, he knows YOU as a soul, not as a flesh and blood human

My God can easily know me in any way, shape or form as He chooses, both before, during and after this short life. And His word makes it clear that he does.

Sorry that yours, by your own estimation, apparently cannot. It is not I, but you, that has handed out the insult to God.

[Missileman]

I do not admit that we have a soul at conception. If one believes that the soul is separate and distinct from the body and can live on AFTER the body dies, one can certainly imagine that the soul is around BEFORE the body arrives, and when God decides to place the soul into the body is HIS business and not ours.

And I don't insult your God, don't insult mine.

15% of conceived eggs are miscarried. Wouldn't make much sense to imbue a couple cells with a soul for no reason...that is if you believe in a soul and all that.

[retiredman]

I know what you mean. That is one of the most unknowable aspects of faith, and very hard to decipher. Right now we, as C.S. Lewis said, see as through a glass, darkly. I look forward to learning all about it someday. :)


C.S. Lewis?????

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I am gonna say that ol' C.S plagiarized THAT line from the apostle Paul!:lol:

[retiredman]

15% of conceived eggs are miscarried. Wouldn't make much sense to imbue a couple cells with a soul for no reason...that is if you believe in a soul and all that.

exactly. I have no idea when God does it.... but I do happen to believe that He is the one that does, at some point.

[red states rule]

exactly. I have no idea when God does it.... but I do happen to believe that He is the one that does, at some point.

Maybe if you studied your Bible more instead of attacking and insulting people here - you would know

[retiredman]

These were your words:


My God can easily know me in any way, shape or form as He chooses, both before, during and after this short life. And His word makes it clear that he does.

Sorry that yours, by your own estimation, apparently cannot. It is not I, but you, that has handed out the insult to God.

My God knew my soul before I was conceived. When he decided to send my soul into the growing fetus in my mother's womb is known only to him, not to YOU, oh expert on the gospel of CS Lewis!!!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

My God knew my soul before I was conceived. When he decided to send my soul into the growing fetus in my mother's womb is known only to him, not to YOU, oh expert on the gospel of CS Lewis!!!:laugh2:

God must have been having an off day when you were conceived :laugh2:

[crin63]

careless. attacking spelling.... I guess you got nothin' else, eh?:lol:

It is a true statement.... NO ONE knows when God places the soul within the flesh, except God.

At whatever point there is any measure of blood from the moment of fertilization forward it is a life.

Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

[Abbey Marie]

C.S. Lewis?????

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I am gonna say that ol' C.S plagiarized THAT line from the apostle Paul!:lol:

Well, duh. I didn't say he originally wrote it. I'm glad you found it, though.

[Sitarro]

sorry. if he knows YOU before you were even formed, he knows YOU as a soul, not as a flesh and blood human. As I said, NO ONE knows when God places a soul into a fetus. NO ONE.

sorry.

So..... if there is a doubt, wouldn't it be more logical and sympathetic to life, that we assume that from it's beginning(the fertilized egg), it is a human being? And if you believe that all human beings have souls?...... it is, after all, presumably not a monkey....... at least in most cases.

[Kathianne]

So..... if there is a doubt, wouldn't it be more logical and sympathetic to life, that we assume that from it's beginning(the fertilized egg), it is a human being? And if you believe that all human beings have souls?...... it is, after all, presumably not a monkey....... at least in most cases.

Sort of the idea of if going to err, be on the side of caution. Good idea.

[MtnBiker]

Can life be created without conception?

[theHawk]

careless. attacking spelling.... I guess you got nothin' else, eh?:lol:

It is a true statement.... NO ONE knows when God places the soul within the flesh, except God.

All the more reason to assume it begins at conception. If its not, then at what exact time does it get its soul? Obama sure as hell didn't know.

[stephanie]

Have you noticed.. the people who are for abortion, have to make up some stupid reason(like it's only a clump of cells, or life doesn't begin at conception), to justify their actions of killing their own children..

sick sick sick

[Sitarro]

I wonder who came up with that lame ass line for BHB, he hasn't worked a real job and was obviously never in the military so we know he didn't just think it up.

[Sitarro]

Sort of the idea of if going to err, be on the side of caution. Good idea.

Exactly...... when it comes to life, Dems are in favor of countless appeals, paid for by the taxpayer, for those who have been judged by their peers to have murdered another human being and sentenced to death. 17-18 years later, they are outside, protesting the sentence being carried out.

When it comes to the ultimate in innocence, an unborn human, they have no problem allowing a 15 year old girl to make the decision to kill her child...... that must be progressive in their minds.

[Psychoblues]

It would take only an idiot or less to fail to understand that the decision to abort any pregnancy should be made between a woman, her doctor and her Lord. Anything beyond that is certainly above the paygrade of anyone here.

Celebration would be inappropriate.

[retiredman]

So..... if there is a doubt, wouldn't it be more logical and sympathetic to life, that we assume that from it's beginning(the fertilized egg), it is a human being? And if you believe that all human beings have souls?...... it is, after all, presumably not a monkey....... at least in most cases.


As I said, I would not presume to second guess something which only God knows. I am not about to ASSUME that a two cell ovum having been only instants before penetrated by a sperm has a sould and should therefore have all the rights afforded to "persons" by our constitution.

[retiredman]

All the more reason to assume it begins at conception. If its not, then at what exact time does it get its soul? Obama sure as hell didn't know.


and neither do you or I. Only God knows when a fetus is endowed with a soul. To ASSUME to know what God knows is arrogant. I do not pretend to have any idea when it happens. You, apparently, do. How divine of you! Congratulations!

[MtnBiker]

The way Pastor Rick Warren asked the question is interesting;

"At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?"

[Psychoblues]

I found that interesting also, MB.


The way Pastor Rick Warren asked the question is interesting;

"At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?"

I yelled at the TV, listen to the question you idiot!!!!!!!!


51 Bottles Of Beer On The Wall, 51 Bottles Of Beer: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[manu1959]

Rights are extended to persons.

really.....show me.....where it says that .....and show me where person is defined....

[stephanie]

and neither do you or I. Only God knows when a fetus is endowed with a soul. To ASSUME to know what God knows is arrogant. I do not pretend to have any idea when it happens. You, apparently, do. How divine of you! Congratulations!

You seem to only use God, when it benefits your warped views..

most of the preachers I know would care about the unborn child, just as they do for the downtrodden..

you are way out there somewhere in the twilight zone.

[Psychoblues]

Surely you're not looking for an answer to that question are you, m'59?


really.....show me.....where it says that .....and show me where person is defined....

There are no short answers to questions that require the time and research that you have obviously missed in your education. The implication by MM is correct. Your disagreement with the semantics or the moral justification is your own to deal with. If education is your problem I suggest that you start at your local library.

I Didn't Mean It The Way I Said It: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[avatar4321]

take a stance? pretend you can know the workings of God? How preesumptious. No one KNOWS when God breathes life and a soul into a fetus, except God.

He wasn't asked when God breathes life into a soul. So your point is rather moot.

[avatar4321]

sorry. if he knows YOU before you were even formed, he knows YOU as a soul, not as a flesh and blood human. As I said, NO ONE knows when God places a soul into a fetus. NO ONE.

sorry.

The body is part of the soul. If God knows you as a soul, then He knows you with a body.

[Psychoblues]

With this analogy, isn't salvation rather unnessarily redundant?



The body is part of the soul. If God knows you as a soul, then He knows you with a body.

How about cremation? How does God fell about that, a'21?

Make A Joyous Noise: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[avatar4321]

The way Pastor Rick Warren asked the question is interesting;

"At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?"

And that is the question. God isn't mentioned at all in the question.

And the second the sperm and the egg join, there cells of a new and unique person begin to divide. The second there are cells, there is life. And as far as Im concerned, the child is entitled to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

People can argue that they don't know when God puts a soul in a person (quite a ridiculous statement if you actually know what a soul is), however, it's completely irrelevant to the actual question. It's a dodge. Even if God put the Spirit of a man in his body at birth, it wouldn't the child had any less right to be protected. It's already a unique individual.

Besides, last time I checked, God gave us a mind and heart to learn and feel. We are more than qualified to determine what is right and wrong and argue for those points. Not only that, but if people are that interested to know the answer, the simple solution would be to ask God.

However, as I stated before, it's irrelevant for this question.

I am concerned about Obama's answer for another reason. If determining when a person has human rights is above his paygrade, what is to keep him from denying human rights to anyone? After all you could be 99 and following the logic of Obama's answer, he would be unable to determine whether you are entitled to human rights. I, quite frankly, don't want anyone who doesnt know when I am entitled to human rights to be in a position of power over me. He's untrustworthy.

[avatar4321]

With this analogy, isn't salvation rather unnessarily redundant?




How about cremation? How does God fell about that, a'21?

Make A Joyous Noise: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Let me know when you stop talking in riddles.

[Psychoblues]

Riddles? Do I need to repeat your rather riddly post?

"The body is part of the soul. If God knows you as a soul, then He knows you with a body."



Let me know when you stop talking in riddles.

Keep 'er between the ditches, cowgirl.

Hit it, George, If Whiskey Don't Kill Me, Your Memory Will: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[PostmodernProphet]

With this analogy, isn't salvation rather unnessarily redundant?


Quote:
Originally Posted by avatar4321 View Post
The body is part of the soul. If God knows you as a soul, then He knows you with a body.



just the opposite, actually....it's necessity becomes even more apparent.....

[Psychoblues]

That, PmP, is not apparent to me. I asked the question of a'21 and he/she gave me a riddle to answer and accused me of the same!!!!!! Go figure!!!!!!!



just the opposite, actually....it's necessity becomes even more apparent.....

Really, PmP, give me your take on the scriptural advise of God and please give a verse or two to back it up. I wait with baited breath!!!!!!!!!!!!

[retiredman]

The body is part of the soul. If God knows you as a soul, then He knows you with a body.

that is your opinion. I don't happen to share it.

[retiredman]

You seem to only use God, when it benefits your warped views..

most of the preachers I know would care about the unborn child, just as they do for the downtrodden..

you are way out there somewhere in the twilight zone.


As I said, I do not know when a fetus gets a soul... neither do you.

I find abortion to be an absolutely abhorent practice. I would not counsel anyone to have one.

[red states rule]

As I said, I do not know when a fetus gets a soul... neither do you.

I find abortion to be an absolutely abhorent practice. I would not counsel anyone to have one.

The BABY gets a soul as soon as its life begins

For a guy who bellows how much he loves the US Constitution, you and your party have no problem denying 14th amendment protection to the unborn, as well as those who survive an abortion who are tossed aside to die, and denied medical care

I do wish your side would out the same amount of effort into protecting the rights of babies as you do the rights of terrorists

[Psychoblues]

Just exactly who and how is anyone protecting the rights of terrorists, rsr?


The BABY gets a soul as soon as its life begins

For a guy who bellows how much he loves the US Constitution, you and your party have no problem denying 14th amendment protection to the unborn, as well as those who survive an abortion who are tossed aside to die, and denied medical care

I do wish your side would out the same amount of effort into protecting the rights of babies as you do the rights of terrorists

Or is that just another of your inane remarks designed solely for partisan bickering purposes?

Hit it, Toby, What Do You Think Of Us Now: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

Just exactly who and how is anyone protecting the rights of terrorists, rsr?



Or is that just another of your inane remarks designed solely for partisan bickering purposes?

Hit it, Toby, What Do You Think Of Us Now: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Come on PB, the left has been demanding US Constitutional rights for terrorists for years. They whine when they are tried and convicted how his "rights" were violated

At the same time, libs like Obama want to toss a living breathing baby who lives thriough an abortion in the trash

[retiredman]

Just exactly who and how is anyone protecting the rights of terrorists, rsr?



Or is that just another of your inane remarks designed solely for partisan bickering purposes?

Hit it, Toby, What Do You Think Of Us Now: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:


he simply spews his opinions and tries to pawn them off as facts.

Like I said: NO ONE knows when the soul enters the fetus. NO ONE but God.

[red states rule]

he simply spews his opinions and tries to pawn them off as facts.

Like I said: NO ONE knows when the soul enters the fetus. NO ONE but God.

So now you are letting others fight your battles for you, and you jump in later. Real guts and courage you are showing preacher man

It is a baby preacher man. A human being with a soul

Being a preacher you should know that. Or perhaps you are not a preacher and that is why you do not know

[darin]

Like I said: NO ONE knows when the soul enters the fetus. NO ONE but God.

Would you rather err on the side of caution?

[Psychoblues]

I have seen no evidence of what you say, rsr. I hear the shit all the time, but the evidence is simply not there.



Come on PB, the left has been demanding US Constitutional rights for terrorists for years. They whine when they are tried and convicted how his "rights" were violated

At the same time, libs like Obama want to toss a living breathing baby who lives thriough an abortion in the trash

Could I politely ask you just one more time? How about some links? I thinketh you imagine far above your understanding!!!!!!!

It's A Dream World With You: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

I have seen no evidence of what you say, rsr. I hear the shit all the time, but the evidence is simply not there.




Could I politely ask you just one more time? How about some links? I thinketh you imagine far above your understanding!!!!!!!

It's A Dream World With You: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Look at the posts from your fellow libs on the thread about OBL's driver being tried and convicted

I do like how libs play dumb with facts that are common knowledge

[Psychoblues]

Are you avoiding the big picture for any particular reason, rsr?



Look at the posts from your fellow libs on the thread about OBL's driver being tried and convicted

I do like how libs play dumb with facts that are common knowledge

The sample that you reflect is not indicative of any atrocities as you intimate by the libs or the Democratic Party in any comprehensive consideration.

Do you always think up such shit or are you just pretending to be an idiot?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute::

[red states rule]

Are you avoiding the big picture for any particular reason, rsr?




The sample that you reflect is not indicative of any atrocities as you intimate by the libs or the Democratic Party in any comprehensive consideration.

Do you always think up such shit or are you just pretending to be an idiot?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute::

It only shows libs are more interested in the rights and comfort of terrorists then protecting the life of newborn baby

Perhaps that is why you are in such a tizzy

[Psychoblues]

You are impossible, rsr. I am not surprised at that.



It only shows libs are more interested in the rights and comfort of terrorists then protecting the life of newborn baby

Perhaps that is why you are in such a tizzy

Continue lying and you will remain as the liar that most here consider you to be. As for me, I have been certain for some time now.

Simple Equation: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

You are impossible, rsr. I am not surprised at that.




Continue lying and you will remain as the liar that most here consider you to be. As for me, I have been certain for some time now.

Simple Equation: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Here is one example of the left defending a terrorist.

Olbermann: Bin Laden’s Driver Is ‘Victim’ of Bush Admin ‘Urinating’ on Constitution
By Brad Wilmouth (Bio | Archive)
August 8, 2008 - 02:40 ET

On Thursday’s Countdown show, one night after accusing President Bush of not doing enough to protect America from Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization before the September 11th attacks, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann seemed sympathetic to the plight of bin Laden’s former driver, Salim Hamdan, during the show’s regular "Bushed" segment which purports to update viewers on what the Countdown host sees as Bush administration scandals. Following Hamdan’s sentencing in a military court during which the judge expressed an apology to the bin Laden aide as he handed down a sentence that would make Hamdan eligible for release in six months, the American military indicated Hamdan may still be kept prisoner at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely in spite of the ruling, prompting Olbermann to accuse the Bush administration of "urinating" on the Constitution, and making Hamdan one of the "victims" of its "medieval" justice system. Olbermann: "So, besides urinating on the Constitution and the rights and freedoms every American soldier has ever fought to win and protect, the Bush administration has now decided that when its victims have actually served their sentences, doled out under its own medieval, quote, "justice," unquote, system, it still might not choose to set them free, thereby giving that Constitution and our country a second pass on the way out."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/08/08/olbermann-bin-laden-s-driver-victim-bush-admin-urinating-constitution

[Psychoblues]

Just what is your objection, rsr? Was there something inaccurate in that report?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

Just what is your objection, rsr? Was there something inaccurate in that report?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

It proves the left is more interested int he rights of terrorists then protecting the rights of baby who survived an abortion

Which is the point I have been making all along

[Psychoblues]

So, you have no objection to the statement that you posted and therefore no argument with the premise?


It proves the left is more interested int he rights of terrorists then protecting the rights of baby who survived an abortion

Which is the point I have been making all along

The hot button bullshit ain't going to make it with this old cowboy, rsr. Can you just marginally stay on topic or is obscurity your only refuge and defense?

Hit it, Lyle, God Will But I Won't: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

So, you have no objection to the statement that you posted and therefore no argument with the premise?



The hot button bullshit ain't going to make it with this old cowboy, rsr. Can you just marginally stay on topic or is obscurity your only refuge and defense?

Hit it, Lyle, God Will But I Won't: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

So you agree with your guy to extend rights to terrorists, but toss a living baby in the trash because it lived through an abortion

Is that correct PB?

[Psychoblues]

No.


So you agree with your guy to extend rights to terrorists, but toss a living baby in the trash because it lived through an abortion

Is that correct PB?

You don't hang with the conversation very well, do you, rsr? No surprise. You've been that way for years and I am a witness to that!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

No.



You don't hang with the conversation very well, do you, rsr? No surprise. You've been that way for years and I am a witness to that!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

A typical Obamabot answer.

[retiredman]

Would you rather err on the side of caution?

what I would rather do is not the issue here. I merely state that those who claim to KNOW that the soul enters the developing fetus at conception are merely stating their opinions as only God knows the answer.

[stephanie]

what I would rather do is not the issue here. I merely state that those who claim to KNOW that the soul enters the developing fetus at conception are merely stating their opinions as only God knows the answer.

yeah yeah..just keep repeating that over and over..:lame2:

[Missileman]

really.....show me.....where it says that .....and show me where person is defined....

Back at ya...show me where it says that a tumor gets human rights. Seriously, is the ridiculous all you've got left?

[Psychoblues]

Just how did Obama get into this conversation, rsr?


A typical Obamabot answer.

You can't answer valid questions, you can't produce links, you can't even offer up a credible opinion towards the subject at hand and you accuse me, Psychoblues, of being an Obamabot?!?!?!?!!??!? Is there no depth to which you are unwilling to go to somehow satisfy your feeble mind that your attitude is correct and righteous?

You're a freakin' idiot, rsr. Keep up your ridiculous shit. You are at least entertaining!!!!!! But, entertainment only goes so far!!!!!!!!!!!

In the meantime,,,,,,,,,,

Hit it, Merle, I Think I'll Just Sit Here And Drink: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

Just how did Obama get into this conversation, rsr?



You can't answer valid questions, you can't produce links, you can't even offer up a credible opinion towards the subject at hand and you accuse me, Psychoblues, of being an Obamabot?!?!?!?!!??!? Is there no depth to which you are unwilling to go to somehow satisfy your feeble mind that your attitude is correct and righteous?

You're a freakin' idiot, rsr. Keep up your ridiculous shit. You are at least entertaining!!!!!! But, entertainment only goes so far!!!!!!!!!!!

In the meantime,,,,,,,,,,

Hit it, Merle, I Think I'll Just Sit Here And Drink: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

I have answered your questions. Like MFM, you can't counter the facts so you play your little games and attack

I will try again

Do you agree with Obama that babies who survive an abortion should be left to die, and denied medical care that will save their lives?

[retiredman]

yeah yeah..just keep repeating that over and over..:lame2:

and you keep ignoring the truth therein.

pathetic.

[crin63]

what I would rather do is not the issue here. I merely state that those who claim to KNOW that the soul enters the developing fetus at conception are merely stating their opinions as only God knows the answer.

By the example of Adam we see that as soon as their is life a person is a living soul.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Life begins at conception because the sperm is carrying blood cells and the life is in the blood.

Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

So at conception there is a living soul.

[Psychoblues]

Please point out where I attacked, rsr?!?!?!!!?!???!



I have answered your questions. Like MFM, you can't counter the facts so you play your little games and attack

I will try again

Do you agree with Obama that babies who survive an abortion should be left to die, and denied medical care that will save their lives?

I certainly have not attacked you in any way but I have deflected your rather juvenile and unjustified stabs in my direction!!!!!!!!

I didn't come looking for you, rsr. You came looking for me. Well, you found me. Now, what are you going to do about that?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

You're a fuckin' paper tiger, rsr. An idiot amongst mostly at least 3rd graders. Without your enormous library that you've catalogued and bookmarked, you are nothing. Cut and paste this:

:pee::dance::pee::dance:

Have a good day, sir. I'm getting tight and hitting the hay!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

By the example of Adam we see that as soon as their is life a person is a living soul.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Life begins at conception because the sperm is carrying blood cells and the life is in the blood.

Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

So at conception there is a living soul.


Tried to rep you but have to spread it around. I owe you

[retiredman]

By the example of Adam we see that as soon as their is life a person is a living soul.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Life begins at conception because the sperm is carrying blood cells and the life is in the blood.

Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

So at conception there is a living soul.


the sperm IS ONE cell. It cannot "carry blood cells". take a biology class.

[avatar4321]

that is your opinion. I don't happen to share it.

It's scripture. Read a few pages. Heck read the first two chapters. It's a very clear doctrine.

[theHawk]

and neither do you or I. Only God knows when a fetus is endowed with a soul. To ASSUME to know what God knows is arrogant. I do not pretend to have any idea when it happens. You, apparently, do. How divine of you! Congratulations!

Apparently you missed the whole point of my post you jackass. I did not say I assumed I know when God gives the baby a soul, I said since we don't know we should assume the earliest point to be safe. Do not put words into my mouth, or claim I said something when I never said anything of the sort. Your dishonesty is appauling for someone who claims to be a man of God.

[Missileman]

Life begins at conception because the sperm is carrying blood cells and the life is in the blood.


:lmao::lmao::lmao:

You must have taken biology in Kansas...what a rube!

[darin]

what I would rather do is not the issue here. I merely state that those who claim to KNOW that the soul enters the developing fetus at conception are merely stating their opinions as only God knows the answer.

That sounds obama-esque.

I'm saying, would you counsel the (unfortunate) folk under your 'leadership' to NOT have an abortion because there's no way to know the moment the 'soul' is created? Id est, would you advice them to err on the side of caution and NOT kill the infant growing inside them?

[red states rule]

That sounds obama-esque.

I'm saying, would you counsel the (unfortunate) folk under your 'leadership' to NOT have an abortion because there's no way to know the moment the 'soul' is created? Id est, would you advice them to err on the side of caution and NOT kill the infant growing inside them?

I would like to know if our resident preacher would stand by and watch a baby who lived through an abortion be put in a closet to die, and denied medical care that could save his/her life

[retiredman]

That sounds obama-esque.

I'm saying, would you counsel the (unfortunate) folk under your 'leadership' to NOT have an abortion because there's no way to know the moment the 'soul' is created? Id est, would you advice them to err on the side of caution and NOT kill the infant growing inside them?

as I have already said in this very thread, I would NEVER counsel a woman to have an abortion.

and your little (unfortunate) dig really does not help us have an adult discussion, does it?

[red states rule]

as I have already said in this very thread, I would NEVER counsel a woman to have an abortion.

and your little (unfortunate) dig really does not help us have an adult discussion, does it?

Now answer post # 126

[darin]

as I have already said in this very thread, I would NEVER counsel a woman to have an abortion.

and your little (unfortunate) dig really does not help us have an adult discussion, does it?

Okay - now - do you support Abortion Rights?

As an aside: How would you feel if your posts here were read aloud verbatim, to "your congregation"?

[retiredman]

Okay - now - do you support Abortion Rights?

As an aside: How would you feel if your posts here were read aloud verbatim, to "your congregation"?


Yes I do.... with great reluctance.

As an aside: what does that have to do with our conversation? If you wish to be treated with respect, treat others that way. There was no cause for you to insult me. If that is how you wish to converse, I'll just put you on ignore along with RSR and Yurt.

[red states rule]

Yes I do.... with great reluctance.

As an aside: what does that have to do with our conversation? If you wish to be treated with respect, treat others that way. There was no cause for you to insult me. If that is how you wish to converse, I'll just put you on ignore along with RSR and Yurt.

Now the whining starts?

and crickets are chirping in response to this one



as I have already said in this very thread, I would NEVER counsel a woman to have an abortion.

and your little (unfortunate) dig really does not help us have an adult discussion, does it?

Now answer post # 126

[PostmodernProphet]

That, PmP, is not apparent to me.......wait with bated breath

why is it not apparent.....if God knows our very souls and we have no secrets from him, isn't it obvious to you (as it certainly is to God) that every single one of us is in need of salvation?......[I posted quickly so you could breath again....unfortunately, I see it's been about seven hours, so I expect you are dead already.....the upside is that if you're dead, you already have the answer you've been waiting for].....

[PostmodernProphet]

what I would rather do is not the issue here. I merely state that those who claim to KNOW that the soul enters the developing fetus at conception are merely stating their opinions as only God knows the answer.

since we don't know when the soul enters the body, doesn't it increase our obligation to provide an equal protection of rights at the earliest possible stage of development?.......

[Trigg]

How about his dodging of this question? "Have you ever voted to support legislation to reduce the number of abortions?"

He didn't answer that question, in spite of answering that he wants to reduce the number of abortions.

[retiredman]

since we don't know when the soul enters the body, doesn't it increase our obligation to provide an equal protection of rights at the earliest possible stage of development?.......

but if we pass laws that actually serve to deprive women who DO have souls of their legal rights while providing rights to clumps of cells that may very well NOT even have souls yet, is that necessarily just?

[darin]

Yes I do.... with great reluctance.

Now...let me understand. While you'd NEVER counsel somebody encouraging them to abort their baby, you have no problem with others NOT in your counsel getting abortions? Here's why I don't believe you're a pastor/church leader, or if you are, it's impossible for you to be a good one:

You are not judgemental. A Good pastor MUST be judgemental - a good leader of ANY organization must take a stand. You waffle.



As an aside: what does that have to do with our conversation? If you wish to be treated with respect, treat others that way. There was no cause for you to insult me. If that is how you wish to converse, I'll just put you on ignore along with RSR and Yurt.

It doesn't have to do with our conversation - that's why it's call an aside. I'm asking "Do you feel okay-enough with your claimed faith and what you say here, that you'd be okay with your church hearing your words, verbatim?" Surely you cannot think THAT is an insult.

You're sounding like a baby now, manfrommaine, E5, retired, and "pastor". Sounding a little like most Democrats - when faced with hard questions, you ignore the cause of your stress. :)

[retiredman]

Now...let me understand. While you'd NEVER counsel somebody encouraging them to abort their baby, you have no problem with others NOT in your counsel getting abortions? Here's why I don't believe you're a pastor/church leader, or if you are, it's impossible for you to be a good one:

You are not judgemental. A Good pastor MUST be judgemental - a good leader of ANY organization must take a stand. You waffle.



It doesn't have to do with our conversation - that's why it's call an aside. I'm asking "Do you feel okay-enough with your claimed faith and what you say here, that you'd be okay with your church hearing your words, verbatim?" Surely you cannot think THAT is an insult.

You're sounding like a baby now, manfrommaine, E5, retired, and "pastor". Sounding a little like most Democrats - when faced with hard questions, you ignore the cause of your stress. :)
where did I EVER say that I did not "have a problem" with people getting abortions? I do not waffle in the least. I am morally opposed to abortion. I do NOT, however, feel that embryos have souls and deserve protection under the law when such protection deprives women of THEIR rights.

And how would you feel if YOUR place of employment were to read all of your public postings and private messages here? I am a retired O5, by the way. and putting "pastor" in quotation marks is insulting, kinda like me saying that you claim to be a "man". Certainly a "man" like you would not like "his" "manhood" questioned, now would you?

[darin]

where did I EVER say that I did not "have a problem" with people getting abortions?

When you said you support a woman's ability to get an abortion on demand.


I do not waffle in the least. I am morally opposed to abortion. I do NOT, however, feel that embryos have souls and deserve protection under the law when such protection deprives women of THEIR rights.

Yet by your own admission you have no idea WHEN a cluster of cells becomes a living soul? Only GOD knows - yet without ANY biblical backing, you've decided it CANNOT be at the moment of conception? How do you reconcile the fact you may very well be SUPPORTING the killing of innocent souls? Where is a woman's RIGHT to have an abortion? Bill of rights? When has congress created a law giving an abortion as a RIGHT of it's populace? Women have a right to PRIVACY. That's what roe v. wade is about. You're trumping the right of the baby's LIFE (We have a right to life, liberty and pursuit...ring any bells?) with the CONVIENIENCE of a woman to kill her offspring WITHOUT visible repercussoins (We all know, don't we? When a woman kills her baby it DOES cause damage to HER...like Abbey says - one killed, two wounded.).

That's just sick - especially from one who CLAIMS Christianity, or a version thereof.







And how would you feel if YOUR place of employment were to read all of your public postings and private messages here? I am a retired O5, by the way. and putting "pastor" in quotation marks is insulting, kinda like me saying that you claim to be a "man". Certainly a "man" like you would not like "his" "manhood" questioned, now would you?

As a retired E5, you should have a modicum of decision-making ability. Fine. You make decisions, but so many of them are horrible. Like your decision to call yourself a "pastor" while continuing to post such vile putrid FILTH here on this board. You can't live two lives forever.

[retiredman]

When you said you support a woman's ability to get an abortion on demand.



Yet by your own admission you have no idea WHEN a cluster of cells becomes a living soul? Only GOD knows - yet without ANY biblical backing, you've decided it CANNOT be at the moment of conception? How do you reconcile the fact you may very well be SUPPORTING the killing of innocent souls? Where is a woman's RIGHT to have an abortion? Bill of rights? When has congress created a law giving an abortion as a RIGHT of it's populace? Women have a right to PRIVACY. That's what roe v. wade is about. You're trumping the right of the baby's LIFE (We have a right to life, liberty and pursuit...ring any bells?) with the CONVIENIENCE of a woman to kill her offspring WITHOUT visible repercussoins (We all know, don't we? When a woman kills her baby it DOES cause damage to HER...like Abbey says - one killed, two wounded.).

That's just sick - especially from one who CLAIMS Christianity, or a version thereof.







As a retired E5, you should have a modicum of decision-making ability. Fine. You make decisions, but so many of them are horrible. Like your decision to call yourself a "pastor" while continuing to post such vile putrid FILTH here on this board. You can't live two lives forever.


we're all done.

[darin]

we're all done.

Okay. You two have a nice time.

http://www.westwiltshire.gov.uk/Bins/fraud/pics/10.gif

[red states rule]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/141501.jpg