The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central JetStar = Mitt (for flip flopping, not voting for)

I still stand that all _arbitrary_ personal believes are ether based on faith or stupidity and are often paraded as morals.

My next question is what qualifies you to make the determination that a persons belief if not based on faith is rendered by stupidity?

So what is the difference between fertilized egg and unfertilized egg and some sperm? Is some magical process happens that adds significance to mixed ingredients? How is this different from "living tissue"?

Flour does not make a cake. Egg does not make a cake. However the magic of mixing flour and egg makes cake mix which even though is mix at the time it's still cake.

Or think of it this way.
A piece of bread once toasted can never go back to being bread therefore its only option is to evolve into a crouton then on to breadcrumbs.

You see even though it went through toast and crouton it ends up as breadcrumbs and it could never be breadcrumbs if it never started out as bread.

That's wisdom.

Pandering to evangelical voter base, to rally Republican base behind a cause, to distract from other issues?

Again, instead of backing your accusations with fact or admitting you are wrong, you are trying to claim false consensus. Perhaps you don't understand what "appeal to false consensus" means?

So do tell why do _you_ think House voted last year to stop funding planned parenthood?



For the record accusing Planned Parenthood (you do know their main function is women health, and most of their services have nothing to do with abortion, do you?) of violating law is an acquisition of wrongdoing.

Interesting, so if I manage to fertilize my finger would you consider it a human being? Would it also stop being my body part at that point?

So you have -1 second to fertilization "part of a human", and then suddenly 1 second later you have a whole human. What changed? Please don't respond with "duh, it got fertilized". I am looking for you to explain why you assign significance to this specific biological process, and not say to ovulation, cleavage, implantation or other number of biological processes involved in pregnancy?




Answer the question.




Does just fertilized human embryo posses any self-awareness or sentience? How does just fertilized human embryo is different from just fertilized cow embryo?

I generally don't differentiate between faith and stupidity when it comes to logical arguments. As to what qualifies me to make the determination? Logical process of elimination of alternatives.




There is nothing magical in the process of making a cake. As to you stance on "cake mix = cake" - I know what you are going to get in the mail for your birthday.



Unlike you, I personally prefer my cake cooked.

So your saying all beliefs are faith based or stupid?
Because everything you believe in is a arbitrary personal belief.

When ever you open your mouth to argue or tell someone something its due to a god or your just stupid????

BTW if you don't know the difference between a human fertilized egg and a piece of toast you are a fucking idiot.
Basic biology, when the sperm that ran the fastest and didn't get caught in a blow job, makes it to the egg and wiggles in and starts the process of cellular division, is when life starts. The difference between living cells and a embryo is the living cell will not grow up to be a fucking idiot.



As for personal beliefs, when I say I believe in something it means I myself having lived to this point in my life have taken that which I have learned and came to a decision that this is what I base my personal values on.

It doesn't always have to do with religion.

Look at atheist they have values and personal beliefs that do not involve an god. But a fucking idiot would say "hey you believe in something so you must be a religion crazy fucker"

Everyone has personal beliefs and a value system by which they live, even fucking idiots.

I think someone needs to look up acquisition. If you're going to try to use big words its best to know their meaning. In case you didn't know, the internet is very useful for educating oneself. Though I doubt that there is a left leaning definition site.

First, you should call the Genius Book of World Records and Ripley's Believe It or Not, then if your fertilized finger turns into a human then yes, I would. You see the difference is that over and over and over again we've observed that a fertilized human egg becomes a human. Therefore, based on scientific observation we can safely assume that a fertilized egg will become a human. If you manage to create a human from the tip of your finger, we'll all gladly affirm that it is human once you've proven it works a few times. That's called science.

No, you have LIFE that will become a human. Since neither you, me or anyone else on this planet can safely say beyond a shadow of a doubt when sentience begins I choose to err in favor of the new life form and assign human qualities to the fertilized egg just the same as you and I enjoy.

I did answer the question, but if you insist on having it in lay terms: It is impossible for gut bacteria to become a human being, therefore we do not assign the same rights and privileges to bacteria that we do to a human. Since a fertilized human egg will become a human who is entitled to those rights I assign those rights to the egg as soon as the process beings. That makes the most logical sense from my perspective.

Obviously, from the current news cycles, the Catholics take that one step further and assign those qualities to the egg and sperm, thus their stance against contraception.


Again, this seems patently obvious but apparently it isn't. It is very simple. A cow egg will not become a human. A fertilized human egg will.

Since you've brought up the "women's rights" issue, where do you stand on the father's rights? Is he just a sperm donor, or since the growing child shares roughly 1/2 of his DNA does he have any say in the matter? Are men not entitled to the same rights women have?

Margaret Sanger started the organization that later became Planned Parenthood with the sole intent of improving the "lighter skinned race" which she believed to be superior to other races. She was a eugenicist and wanted to eliminate the "undesirables" as she called the poor, lower classes, and non-white. She advocated sterilisation and the abortion of children conceived by those people she deemed unworthy. Even today the vast majority of Planned Parenthood offices are located in poor and minority neighborhoods.

Today she is celebrated by the left as a visionary for women's rights. I think, much like her contemporary Hitler, she was pure evil. She condemned Hitler's killing machine because it "didn't go far enough, and was too overt."

Really? You are grasping the straws of nitpicking my posts for misspellings? It was very clear that I meant "accusation" when I typed "acquisition" , but thank you for proofreading my post I guess?

Maybe everything you believe in is arbitrary, I personally prefer to base my worldview on logic, science and past experiences. I can't claim that all of my believes are substantiated, but if you point out ones that are not I'd be willing to reconsider them.

Key logical part of this argument that you are repeatedly ignoring while you are whipping yourself into religious zeal is that I asked you to _SUBSTANTIATE_ your views on abortion and you repeatedly failed to do so.



So it is potential of human life that you are assigning special significance to?

Well then to stay consistent to your view we also should disallow any use of contraceptive, or even abstinence from sex.

Logical conclusion of "potential of human life is precious" is that we should take every potential and try to turn it into possibility by breeding like rabbits.