REAL issues

ReconToaster wrote:

imagine you're in heaven. What would you think of it?

I feel as if this is a trick question. One meant to 'cause me to seem an idiot by relating you "Heaven" to the place of cloud beds and angels often illustrated in fiction.

So I'd rather not answer that question, as it seems quite unstable.

If you mean to be referring to the "place of cloud beds and angels often illustrated in fiction,"; I would probably think something along the lines of "huh, I was wrong. Sucks that all the wonder I saw in the world can be muted by the existence of magic"

Do you have to take everything as a personal insult?

capn qwerty wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

imagine you're in heaven. What would you think of it?

I feel as if this is a trick question. One meant to 'cause me to seem an idiot by relating you "Heaven" to the place of cloud beds and angels often illustrated in fiction.

So I'd rather not answer that question, as it seems quite unstable.

If you mean to be referring to the "place of cloud beds and angels often illustrated in fiction,"; I would probably think something along the lines of "huh, I was wrong. Sucks that all the wonder I saw in the world can be muted by the existence of magic"

Do you have to take everything as a personal insult?

Or take everything and make it into a personal insult to anyone else's beliefs?

Do you have to take everything as a personal insult?

I don't really see how I interpreted it as a personal insult...

Well, he asked a simple question, and you automaticaly assumed he was trying to make you look like an idiot.

ReconToaster wrote:

Christian, not catholic. I really hate when people get mad at catholics for no reason...

umm... no, it was the catholics (before the church split) . People get mad at the Catholic church because of its history of restriction and cruelty. I'm not saying they are nearly as such now, but in the distant past they have been a bit power hungry.

You forget the Eastern Orthadox. And they were still christian, makes it seem like you're getting at something when you say Catholic.

ReconToaster wrote:

And they didn't refit it, they adopted it. We do the same thing with our food here in America, your point?

My point is that it's not JUST a christian holiday.

It is though. Just because we added a stupid tree ritual doesn't mean it's not christian.

ReconToaster wrote:

But why do you celebrate it? That's like some guy in Sweeden celebrating Thanksgiving this thursday...

Or like a christian celebrating a celtic holiday. non-religious peoples have adopted it through religious background. My parents' parents were christian. They, as you say, "adopted" it from them.

Why do you think we celebrate christmas? It's because that's when JESUS WAS BORN!!!!! If you're going to make a point, make sure it makes sence. If there was some holiday near that time that they decided worked better together, that's not my problem. The point is, the gift giving part IS christian.

ReconToaster wrote:

imagine you're in heaven. What would you think of it?

I feel as if this is a trick question. One meant to 'cause me to seem an idiot by relating you "Heaven" to the place of cloud beds and angels often illustrated in fiction.

So I'd rather not answer that question, as it seems quite unstable.

I don't give a rats @$$ what you think heaven is like! All I care about is what you would think of your parents donating your cells to science.

ReconToaster wrote:If you mean to be referring to the "place of cloud beds and angels often illustrated in fiction,"; I would probably think something along the lines of "huh, I was wrong. Sucks that all the wonder I saw in the world can be muted by the existence of magic"

*sigh*
Wow, you really just want to piss me off, don't you?

BBJynne wrote:not so fast

we had a special session of the legislative body to fix the law.

it's not 18 and under anymore

gotta bring them within 30 days of birth

Really? Was that the outcome? Well then, I'm sure you'll know if the baby has a severe disease before 30 days, and the trip itself can't take more than 2.

No civ, Christmas is not just a Christian holiday anymore. It has been twisted and warped by the goverment and buisness's to be all about buying stuff, because no matter how much sugar they put on it, it all boils down to buying stuff.

And nobody knows when Jesus was born, so both of you can shut it about that.

capn qwerty wrote:No civ, Christmas is not just a Christian holiday anymore. It has been twisted and warped by the goverment and buisness's to be all about buying stuff, because no matter how much sugar they put on it, it all boils down to buying stuff.

And nobody knows when Jesus was born, so both of you can shut it about that.

Stupid government...

It was snowing, he was in a manger, it's not going to be right on, but it doesn't have to be.

Where does it say it was snowing (this is curiosity, not snide)?

And what does him being in a manger have to do with the time of the year?

capn qwerty wrote:Where does it say it was snowing (this is curiosity, not snide)?

And what does him being in a manger have to do with the time of the year?

I'd go get the bible and look it up, but I'm to lazy.

makes it seem like you're getting at something when you say Catholic.

Or it could just be that it was indeed the catholics in particular that adopted the holiday. Just because I say something about the catholic church does not mean I am insulting it. That's like saying that I'm being prejudice by simply stating that the pope is catholic. It sounds to me like you're the one with pre-existing negative views towards the catholic church.

It is though. Just because we added a stupid tree ritual doesn't mean it's not christian.

thing is, they didn't just add the tree ritual to an already existing holiday. they basically took their holiday and told them "This just happens to be the same day Jesus was born." The original Christmas was more like a ploy for conversions.

For mine and many families, Christmas has become more of a tradition than a religious holiday. It's kinda like the super bowl. No one really cares, but it's an excuse to throw a party.

In a way, the non-religious have adopted Christmas from the christians just as you have adopted it from the Celts. I don't see the difference.

I don't give a rats @$$ what you think heaven is like!

Well, that's kinda what you asked for... a little erratic are we?

All I care about is what you would think of your parents donating your cells to science.

I kinda answered what was pretty much the same question already. If my parents told me that they had considered donating my cells to science, I'd be ok with knowing that. I wouldn't feel like they "didn't want me " I would understand their considertaion and I would know that either way, they love me now and do not regret their decision.

Does that answer your question?

Wow, you really just want to piss me off, don't you?

Are you proposing that a single entity could create an entire Universe in, as you so literally believe, seven days, could do so without some form of magical intervention? What else is there? Telekinesis?

I use the word "fiction" in reference to the countless childrens' books that portray it as some sort of cloud palace. I'm sure the bible illustration is much more... respectable?

that's when JESUS WAS BORN!!!!!

No. As a matter of fact, it wasn't. Historians agree that he was most likely born in spring.

Well, he asked a simple question, and you automaticaly assumed he was trying to make you look like an idiot.

We were kinda amidst an epic debate when he asked me. Forgive me for suspecting ill intentions from such a silly question. "what would you think if you were in heaven?" how am I supposed to answer that? "Civbase told me so?"

well for as i have to say as in the world was created in 7 days i belive no one knows how long was gods day and thats my two cents and have a nice day ^.^

Very good point onyx.

That's fine RT, but you still didn't have to bite his head off.

Like I said, no one knows.

Lets just not even go there, ok? I'd like us all to still be friends at the end of the day (or at least not ready to murder each other on sight).

Yes, the Bible does portray it in a much more sensible light. I could look up a couple verses in reference if you wish.

RT, can you honestly say that you would be ok with the thought that your parents considered killing you at one point? Can you really believe that you would be ok with that?

Civ did go overboard on that one, yes.

I think that's how it is for most families, even the Christian one's. I know tradition takes a large part of it in my family.

You do seem to generalize all Christians by the actions of the Catholic church. Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm just saying that you do mention them alot, and usualy in a negative way.

KristallNacht wrote:Good thing you can't abort after 12 weeks, right? lol

Erm, actually, you can abort up until week 28, though it is usually cut off at week 24.

ReconToaster wrote: not at all.

How about this situation. What if a child is to be born with a severe case of mental illness (like downs syndrome) and would very likely live a very limited, walled in life style and likely amount to nothing in the long run. Is it so horrible to end the misery before it begins?

What if a child is to be born with severe deformities such as missing limbs? Is it so horrible to abort then? Do you understand the costs of taking care of either of the two kinds of children? A family could go bankrupt taking care of such a child, and if one was put up for adoption, it would very likely never be taken in.

If you had down syndrome, would you want to to be killed? If you were missing an arm or a leg, would you want to be killed?

ReconToaster wrote: what if a couple has intercourse for the specific reason of donating an embryo to science? The embryo was never meant to live in the first place. Just because the couple had sex, they must immediately treat the microscopic result as a human being?

Such an embryo never even had the potential to live, as it was created only for the purpose of dying.

If abortion were illegal, people wouldn't have sex for the express purpose of having an abortion. If a couple knows abortion is illegal, they won't have sex so that they can have an abortion, because it isn't legal.

But let's stop for a second and consider something. How often are these the reasons for an abortion in the first place? Well, according to Wikipedia, 8.2% of all abortions in the US occur either because of risks in the baby's health (3.3%), the mother's health (2.8%), or other (2.1%). That is to say, 91.8% of all abortions in the US occur for reasons that could be solved through adoption, such as the desire to postpone having children (25.5%), unable to financially support a child (21.3%), the relationship through which the child was born is strained (14.1%), the mother/father is considered too young by themselves or others (12.2%), too busy with jobs or education to care for a child (10.8%), or they simply don't want children/any more children at all (7.9%).

ReconToaster wrote: Even for a regular child, adoption is not always a good route to take. In Russia, countless children are shoved into orphanages and never adopted. They are stuck in these places all their lives, until they finally reach adulthood and are put out on the street with no guidance.

Thankfully, we live in the United States, not Russia.

ReconToaster wrote: This is what you call a human? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Embryo,_8_cells.jpg
It is a mere grouping of cells capable of no thoughts, feelings, or senses. It is NOT human. That is like calling a sperm cell human, And i can't even begin to imagine how many of those we all kill every day.

A sperm cell is only half a human, and has no potential to become a human without meeting an egg cell. An embryo doesn't have to meet with anything to grow into a human. And, you have once again dodged the question. Define humanity, rather than asking rhetorical questions on whether we consider something human simply because of how it looks.

ReconToaster wrote: The human race is over populated as it is anyways.

So the solution, of course, is to kill people?

CivBase wrote:Oh great, another one of those 1-in-a-million situations that you so called "pro-choice" advocates are soo good at making.

Don't worry, the situation in which he offered only accounts for a portion of 3.3% of all abortions in the US.

CivBase wrote:I don't know about you, but wouldn't you rather live with an illness that limits your life instead of not living at all? I know I would.

As would I.

CivBase wrote:Same answer as before.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:Two comebacks to this:
[list=1][*]Do you understand that the cost of murder, religiously speaking, is an eternity spent in hell being tortured? That's much more than any monitary value.
[*]Well, there are safe havens that they can take the babies to. Just take a small trip to either Iowa or Nebraska and drop it off at a hospital.

Furthermore, Recon, do you know the cost of keeping a criminal in prison? The taxpayers money allows for convicted murderers and rapists to eat three square meals a day, have entertainment, lead only quasi-confined lives. Perhaps we should redirect that money to parents with children with disabilities?

ReconToaster wrote:I can disagree with that. My health teacher has adopted five kids, each with a mental disability. There are people out there that actualy look for that kind of stuff specificly.

Nifty.

CivBase wrote:Then I'm against it.

Of course, why would a couple have such intercourse if abortion was illegal?

CivBase wrote:Well, first off, it takes a while for those two cells to turn into a blastosis. A few weeks at that. Humans don't have the right to decide wheather soemthing was meant to live.

Agreed.

CivBase wrote:If left alone by humans, though, it would have had very great potential.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:You mean the people that just give up their kids because they are girls? Yah, that's going to prove your point really well...

The very fact that he used an example of adoption in Russia rather than the US means that the example of adoption in the US wasn't a compelling one.

CivBase wrote:Once again, better than not living at all.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:Why yes, yes it is. What difference does it make? Senior, adult, teen, child, baby, fetus, embryo, blastosis, zygote. They're all living, growing humans. Why is it so hard for you to see this? All they are are different stages of development.

Agreed. Until Recon defines humanity (or at least answers questions regarding his previous definition, which doesn't even stretch to many adults), this type of rhetoric he is using won't work.

CivBase wrote:A baby doesn't utalize any of these, is it a human?
What is thought? Messages sent from your brain to the rest of your body. What is feeling? Interpritations of these thoughts. What are sences? Physical interpritations of your surroundings.

Exactly.

CivBase wrote:I knew this was coming. A sperm cell has no potential of becoming a human. Not until it is fertalized, before it is 'chosen' to be brought into the world, is it a human

Exactly. If left alone, a sperm cell will never grow into what we all agree is a human. If left alone, an embryo will.

CivBase wrote:*stares at recon blankly*

CivBase wrote:Once again, I'm going to be very mean on this subject.
*looks around for KrAzY*
If you think the human race is over populated, you can be the first to go. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Agreed. The solution to overpopulation isn't to kill babies. If you want to cut down in childbirth, you have to promote responsibility. Abortion does just the opposite, because it provides an easy bail out to anyone who disregards responsibility.

ReconToaster wrote: Ummmm.... my cousin has severe downs syndrome. It's not one in a million.

It was an exaggeration. However, children aborted because they have a mental disease doesn't even account for 3.3% of all abortions in the US. That is where your example is flawed.

ReconToaster wrote:Again, my cousin has about the same comprehension as a 3 year old, and will never improve. His physical development is also very stunted. He will probably live with his parents until he becomes an adult and is put in some sort of home where he will be stuck for the rest of his life. Were it my choice, I would not have brought such a sad and terrible life into existence.

So, were it your choice, you would kill your cousin?

ReconToaster wrote: This only makes you sound dumb Civ.

Coming from the guy who feels that the human race is no better that pigs?

Sounds to me like you're doing that right now, deciding that every embryo is meant to live.

Quite the opposite. He is saying we should leave them alone. If they are meant to die, they will die, and if they are meant to live, they will live. If left alone, most embryos will live.

ReconToaster wrote:were it not for human intervention, it really would not exist.

So if you don't want it, don't create it. ;)

ReconToaster wrote: hmmm... someone's a dick. I wonder how all those male Russian orphans would feel about that statement.

I wonder if it matters, since we don't live in Russia.

ReconToaster wrote: I see that they are classified as human. Thing is, I don't give a shit. I do not believe that just because something has the name "human" stamped on it's hypothetical forehead, it is somehow extra special. Our poop is human feces, but it's still just poop.

It's like all you know how to do is give false analogy after false analogy. But even this analogy, human feces is treated better than animal feces. We throw animal feces away, if we even bother to remove it from where it is. We flush human feces down a toilet. And, again, define humanity, because so far, you're definition doesn't apply to very many adults.

ReconToaster wrote: I'm pretty sure babies exhibit both cognitive senses as well as affection towards their mother. My nephew is less than a year old, and he cries whenever he is far from his mother. Babies sustain at least a very basic thought process. Embryo(s)and fetuses do not.

Actually, they do. Being able to feel pain and being self aware are quite different.

ReconToaster wrote: It's potential to become human is its potential to be fertilized.

If left alone, a sperm cell will never grow into what you call a human. If left alone, an embryo will.

ReconToaster wrote: Oh yes, because masturbation is a sin. (even though the story of Onan was mis interpreted and had nothing to do with that.) Even through use of the missionary position, millions of sperm cells are killed.

Masturbation goes hand in hand with sexual fantasies, which go hand in hand with lust. It isn't Tamar's attempts to have a child that condemns it, but the simple fact that masturbation is a manifestation of sexual desire and lust, which are sins. Furthermore, masturbation is generally looked down upon, by those of faith and those that aren't of faith. However, since sperm cells aren't humans, the point is moot.

[quote="ReconToaster] How very Christian of you; to suggest death upon another. But isn't suicide a sin?

Suicide is a sin, yes. Not an unforgivable sin like the Pope might tell you, but a sin nonetheless. Though, I'd like to remind you that we Christians aren't without sin. No one is without sin.

That aside, however, rather than trying to make Civ sound bad, perhaps you should try logic. It was pretty obvious that Civ is against any sort of death in order to solve over population, so then we can identify the suggestion is simple sarcasm. To try and extort such simple sarcasm is pretty desperate, if you ask me.

PiElord wrote:Huh, aren't you making a Christmas list in another thread...

Now that's irony I can appreciate. Thank you for that, Pie.

ReconToaster wrote: Copied from my statement on said thread:

Actually, If you look into it, you'll find that Christmas actually originated from Celtic festivals (wherein "magic" pine trees were brought into houses to protect people from the evil winter spirits.) that occurred around the same time of the year as christmas. The christians modified their religion to help encourage such people to convert. Jesus was born in spring.

Either way, christmas is more of an economic holiday than anything.

Some of the secular manifestations of Christmas might originate from that Celtic festival, even the time, but the fact remains that it is called Christmas.

PiElord wrote:Copied from my previous statement on said thread:
And now you're making excuses.
Fuck Toaster, just look at the name.
"Christmas"
Whether you like it or not, it's a religious holiday, and you're an atheist.

I just think it's ironic that you're the one always talking about how Christians are either retarded, or hyppocrits.

Bugger...Pie and I agreed twice in a row...this is most unexpected.

CivBase wrote:I'm sorry, one-in-a-thousand.

CivBase wrote:But if you were him, would you rather be killed?

Mm...

CivBase wrote:Maybe to an athiest.

But then, the concept of science being somehow absolute when it has always been changing and contradicting itself also sounds dumb.

CivBase wrote:Allow me to rephrase that for those of you who are picky.

The fact that Recon has to revert to witty grammar doesn't bode well for his argument.

CivBase wrote:You treat life as though it is some machine you constructed. Without your parents intervention, you would not exist, but how would you feel if they decided to donate you to science and kill you?

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:Well, there's going to be males of course, but a majority is female. I didn't say they were all girls. Do I need to clarify everything I say?

For Recon, yes. It seems that if we aren't extreme detailed, he will try to contort our words into misinformation. But he can get away with not bothering to define humanity clearly, and still constantly refer to it as something that's "earned".

CivBase wrote:Of course not.

You know, Recon, serial killers don't give a shit about killing people, and we still lock them up. ;)

CivBase wrote:Names mean nothing. But why it's given a name is what makes it what it is.
our poop won't become a human, idiot.

It is probably best if we just ignore is blatantly false analogies.

CivBase wrote:And where do you get this fact from? Have you ever wondered why a baby cries when it's away from its mother?
So just because something thinks, it's human? This seems to contradict every single thing you've told me in the past few pages.

Now now, let's not let logic get in his way.

[quote="CivBase"]But that potential is nothing without direct human intervention. So it has no potential when left on its own.

CivBase wrote:Not that, I just think you're sick.

Like I said, all religion aside, masturbation is still generally looked down upon.

CivBase wrote:Why thankyou. I do my best.

Yayz. More sarcasm.

CivBase wrote:Yes it is a sin. But then again, you're not a Christian anyways, so what do you have to worry about?

Hehe.

CivBase wrote:The gift giving was derived from Saint Nicholas.
The day was derived from Jesus.
The tree was apparently derived from the celtics.
So have fun with your tree celebration...

Technically speaking, the name was derived from Jesus, and the day is in the near vicinity of the Celtic celebration.

ReconToaster wrote: I wouldn't think much of it, as I would be at a microscopic level, incapable of thought.

But now you can think about it, so looking back, how you feel if your parents had donated you to science?

ReconToaster wrote: At least something of thought is conscious.

You realize that fetuses become self-aware before birth, right?

CivBase wrote:Thankyou soo much for that wonderful glimps into your mind.

You mean the cop out, in which he said that in that situation, he wouldn't understand what was going on enough to feel either way?

CivBase wrote:So having concious makes it bad to kill?

I think that might be what Recon is saying...

ReconToaster wrote: It sounds as if you are attempting to insinuate something, but I can't quite grasp what. I apologize for giving you a very logical answer. If my parents were to tell me that they almost aborted me, I would not be affected. I would understand why they would have considered it, but also understand that they do not regret their decision, and that they love me.

Almost and doing so are two different things. If your parents aborted you, with the mind you currently have now, would you or would you not be upset?

CivBase wrote:Lets imagine that you could feel something at that point...
In fact, let's, just this once, imagine you're in heaven. What would you think of it?

Mm...

XNate02 wrote:I agree with Civ mainly because we dont have a right to take life away from someone

I mean what gives us the right to decide who lives and who dies?

and dont give me the : "its because we can"

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against capital punishment, but I don't believe that we should be allowed to decide who lives or dies if that person hasn't done anything to deserve us even contemplating such decisions.

PiElord wrote:Well, I assume he'd think:
"Oh shit!"
Right before St. Petey pulled the lever that dropped him into Hell.

Technically speaking, aborted babies are below the age of accountability, and go straight to Heaven.

ReconToaster wrote: I feel as if this is a trick question. One meant to 'cause me to seem an idiot by relating you "Heaven" to the place of cloud beds and angels often illustrated in fiction.

So I'd rather not answer that question, as it seems quite unstable.

If you mean to be referring to the "place of cloud beds and angels often illustrated in fiction,"; I would probably think something along the lines of "huh, I was wrong. Sucks that all the wonder I saw in the world can be muted by the existence of magic"

Quit avoiding the damned question, Recon. We aren't asking what you would think of Heaven. We are asking what you would think about your parents aborting you, if you were capable of fully sentient and intelligent thought afterwards.

BBJynne wrote:not so fast

we had a special session of the legislative body to fix the law.

it's not 18 and under anymore

gotta bring them within 30 days of birth

Well, he was referring to immediately after birth anyway.

capn qwerty wrote:Do you have to take everything as a personal insult?

I think it is convenient for him in order to avoid actually answering the question he knows we asked.

PiElord wrote:Or take everything and make it into a personal insult to anyone else's beliefs?

That too.

ReconToaster wrote: I don't really see how I interpreted it as a personal insult...

You were asked what you would think if you were aborted and capable of thinking afterward, and instead took the opportunity to insult Christians and the concept of Heaven.

capn qwerty wrote:Well, he asked a simple question, and you automaticaly assumed he was trying to make you look like an idiot.

That to.

CivBase wrote:You forget the Eastern Orthadox. And they were still christian, makes it seem like you're getting at something when you say Catholic.

I feel as if this post was from another thread...

CivBase wrote:It is though. Just because we added a stupid tree ritual doesn't mean it's not christian.

I didn't even know that the tree was a technical part of the Christian holiday.

CivBase wrote:Why do you think we celebrate christmas? It's because that's when JESUS WAS BORN!!!!! If you're going to make a point, make sure it makes sence. If there was some holiday near that time that they decided worked better together, that's not my problem. The point is, the gift giving part IS christian.

Referring to the gifts presented to Jesus by the wise men.

CivBase wrote:

I don't give a rats @$$ what you think heaven is like! All I care about is what you would think of your parents donating your cells to science.

Now now, Civ, just because Recon is dodging questions doesn't mean we should get worked up about it.

CivBase wrote:*sigh*
Wow, you really just want to piss me off, don't you?

It would seem that way.

CivBase wrote:Really? Was that the outcome? Well then, I'm sure you'll know if the baby has a severe disease before 30 days, and the trip itself can't take more than 2.

Correct.

capn qwerty wrote:No civ, Christmas is not just a Christian holiday anymore. It has been twisted and warped by the goverment and buisness's to be all about buying stuff, because no matter how much sugar they put on it, it all boils down to buying stuff.

And nobody knows when Jesus was born, so both of you can shut it about that.

Right, but the point is the government took a religious holiday, secularized it, and now they're trying to keep the religious part out of it (which is the part that ticks me off). It isn't like we started including trees in our festival, and then told the Celts they couldn't celebrate their holiday because we were using it.

CivBase wrote:Stupid government...

It was snowing, he was in a manger, it's not going to be right on, but it doesn't have to be.

capn qwerty wrote:Where does it say it was snowing (this is curiosity, not snide)?

And what does him being in a manger have to do with the time of the year?

Technically speaking, Christ was probably born in late spring. During the winter, sheep were kept under cover rather than outside. However, we don't know the exact date of his birth, so Christmas was used as a general appreciation for his birth. It's kind of like how Veteran's Day is on the day that World War I ended, but we celebrate all veterans, not just World War I veterans (who are few and far between).

CivBase wrote:I'd go get the bible and look it up, but I'm to lazy.

As far as I can tell, there is no specific reference to snow.

ReconToaster wrote: Or it could just be that it was indeed the catholics in particular that adopted the holiday. Just because I say something about the catholic church does not mean I am insulting it. That's like saying that I'm being prejudice by simply stating that the pope is catholic. It sounds to me like you're the one with pre-existing negative views towards the catholic church.

I don't know about Civ, but I am not overly fond of the Roman Catholic church. Limbo, a Pope, the Seven Sacraments, none of this can be found in the Bible.

ReconToaster wrote: thing is, they didn't just add the tree ritual to an already existing holiday. they basically took their holiday and told them "This just happens to be the same day Jesus was born." The original Christmas was more like a ploy for conversions.

I don't believe anyone actually believed that December 25th was the day Christ was born. It is simply the day we celebrate his birth. And we didn't tell the Celts they couldn't practice their holiday because of ours, either.

ReconToaster wrote: For mine and many families, Christmas has become more of a tradition than a religious holiday. It's kinda like the super bowl. No one really cares, but it's an excuse to throw a party.

It is just ironic that you are so critical of Christians when one of their holidays provides you and your family an excuse to party and give/receive presents.

In a way, the non-religious have adopted Christmas from the christians just as you have adopted it from the Celts. I don't see the difference.

ReconToaster wrote: Well, that's kinda what you asked for... a little erratic are we?

No, he was simply suggesting a setting in which you could answer the question of how you would feel about being aborted, one in which you could think with a fully developed sentient mind.

ReconToaster wrote: I kinda answered what was pretty much the same question already. If my parents told me that they had considered donating my cells to science, I'd be ok with knowing that. I wouldn't feel like they "didn't want me " I would understand their considertaion and I would know that either way, they love me now and do not regret their decision.

But the question wasn't "what if they almost did?", it was "what if you were conceived specifically for the purpose of being aborted and being donated to science, and then you were aborted and donated to science?", and you dodged that question by saying that you wouldn't have an intelligent enough mind to care at that point, so Civ offered a situation in which you would. If you went to Heaven afterwards, and thus had a fully developed mind, how would you feel if your parents conceived you in order to abort you, and then aborted you.

ReconToaster wrote: Does that answer your question?

No, it does not.

Are you proposing that a single entity could create an entire Universe in, as you so literally believe, seven days, could do so without some form of magical intervention? What else is there? Telekinesis?

I use the word "fiction" in reference to the countless childrens' books that portray it as some sort of cloud palace. I'm sure the bible illustration is much more... respectable?

To call it "magic" is to cheapen it.

ReconToaster wrote: No. As a matter of fact, it wasn't. Historians agree that he was most likely born in spring.

But we celebrate his birth in December. We celebrate all veterans on the day World War I ended, but not all of those veterans, in fact, few of those veterans, participated in World War I.

ReconToaster wrote: We were kinda amidst an epic debate when he asked me. Forgive me for suspecting ill intentions from such a silly question. "what would you think if you were in heaven?" how am I supposed to answer that? "Civbase told me so?"

It was a setting for which to stop avoiding the previous question, "what would you think if your parents aborted you?", not "what would you think if you were in Heaven?" with no previous context.

Onyxknight wrote:well for as i have to say as in the world was created in 7 days i belive no one knows how long was gods day and thats my two cents and have a nice day ^.^

One could look at it literally or figuratively. The Bible does say that God's perception of time is different from our own. I personally like to believe it was a literal seven days, but I'm not against the concept of it being figurative.

capn qwerty wrote:Very good point onyx.

That's fine RT, but you still didn't have to bite his head off.

Like I said, no one knows.

Lets just not even go there, ok? I'd like us all to still be friends at the end of the day (or at least not ready to murder each other on sight).

I never take these debates to seriously. I'm too much a bitter cynic to really care.

capn qwerty wrote:Yes, the Bible does portray it in a much more sensible light. I could look up a couple verses in reference if you wish.

The basic concept is that the streets are made of gold, the gates of pearl...let's see...there is no external source of light, because the radiance of God will light Heaven...I believe there is mention that there will be no more oceans...hmm...I'm too lazy to look up specific references.

capn qwerty wrote:RT, can you honestly say that you would be ok with the thought that your parents considered killing you at one point? Can you really believe that you would be ok with that?

Which is the question we want him to answer. Not if they considered it, or if they almost did, or what he thinks about Heaven.

capn qwerty wrote:Civ did go overboard on that one, yes.

I think that's how it is for most families, even the Christian one's. I know tradition takes a large part of it in my family.

Which is true, and personally I feel is kind of sad. I must admit I often get caught up in the secular aspects of Christmas myself. Probably the main reason I don't like the secular's using Christmas is because they are trying to take all the religion out of it, lest we "offend" someone. I mean, God forbid someone says "Merry Christmas" in a Target, or a Nativity Scene is displayed in a public place. It's that sort of stuff that makes me mad, which is probably why I reacted the way I did.

capn qwerty wrote:You do seem to generalize all Christians by the actions of the Catholic church. Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm just saying that you do mention them alot, and usualy in a negative way.

And we just want to make it clear that the Roman Catholic church, which declares that the Pope is a sort of manifestation of God on Earth, that there is such a place as Limbo, that filthy heretical Protestants and Jews should be killed en masse, that a man who is not baptized cannot go to Heaven, that suicide is an unforgivable sin, is not an accurate representation of Christianity. Not all Catholics are like that, but the Catholic Church, the Vatican, is something often used to somehow point out hypocrisy within Christianity, when in fact, much of the hypocrisy is not from the Bible, but from somewhere else.

FIRST!

Rotaretilbo wrote:

But then, the concept of science being somehow absolute when it has always been changing and contradicting itself also sounds dumb.

Who says science is absolute? In the definition of a Theory (like the Big Bang Theory, Theory of Relativity, etc) is that it is subject to change once information has been supplied to counteract it. But things become theories due to extensive research and the fact no other explanation works based on all knowledge.

Ah, but there's the thing right there: we don't have all the facts, do we? We don't have all the information, so really, nothing can be ruled out as impossible. And I do mean nothing.

certain things can be. Like the Bible as a whole being something other than literature.

capn qwerty wrote:Ah, but there's the thing right there: we don't have all the facts, do we? We don't have all the information, so really, nothing can be ruled out as impossible. And I do mean nothing.

Wait, so I really can fly?

*jumps off building*

*gets shovel*
-_- dammit and he splattered too.

It was a setting for which to stop avoiding the previous question, "what would you think if your parents aborted you?", not "what would you think if you were in Heaven?" with no previous context.

what is that? the 12th time you re-stated the question in your previous triple post? Next time, lets calm down with the repetitive restatements. You posted three times about how I "failed to define humanity." Give me a chance to answer please?

What if your parents aborted you and your "soul" ascended to "heaven? " how would you feel?

The reason I do not wish to respond to this question is because it assumes the existence of such a place as heaven. The fact that an embryo/early fetus is even not conscious is what makes abortion, in my mind, a non-issue. By implementing the existence of an afterlife, you are completely and efficiently voiding such an argument.

now what were you saying about cop outs? The previously mentioned question resonates such a tactic with great strength!

To answer the question, If i was up in the "heaven" place of yours, I would indeed probably think something along the lines of "looks fun down there." In being presented with this question, I further understand the argument that you are both presenting, based on Christian faith.

You believe that this situation is a reality, and that when aborted babies ascend to "Heaven," they feel like they are "missing out." Unfortunately, this is merely YOUR BELIEF. I am sorry, but basing a law off of religion would be rather contradictory to the Constitution on which this country was built. You cannot impose your religion at a federal level.

If you had a solid argument with no Religious interventions such as "Heaven," maybe I would respect your views on the topics at hand.

I mean, God forbid someone says "Merry Christmas" in a Target

Agreed. While I firmly hold the opinion that Christmas can be celebrated without religious involvement, I don't think it is necessary to strip it of its origins. I understand full well that I have the Christians (as well as the Celts
) to thank for the tradition that I now take part in. It's not that I do not recognize the influence (good and bad) of Christianity, I simply don't think that the religion itself is relevant in the modern Era.

For example, Religion may have promoted (not invented) morals, but at this point, Laws and morals are understood by general society, and can be promoted through non-religious means. I am Atheist. That does not mean that I think it's ok to torture small animals.

Coming from the guy who feels that the human race is no better that pigs?

How many times do I have to restate this? I am not saying that an adult human is not more important than an adult pig. What I am stating is that I do not believe there to be any inherent differences between a pig embryo and a human embryo. Neither of them have even obtained consciousness. The only real difference is in the structure of their DNA.

I have the potential to be bitten by a radio-active spider. Is anyone treating me like spiderman?

Erm, actually, you can abort up until week 28

And I do not support late term abortions.

You realize that fetuses become self-aware before birth, right?

Self awareness is not necessarily the same as consciousness. I'm sure a fish has consciousness, but I doubt it is aware of what it is in the scheme of the world. A fish runs on primal instinct, a trait we humans have surpassed. Still, this argument is not relevant to what we're discussion, as I was talking about consciousness.

the concept of science being somehow absolute when it has always been changing and contradicting itself also sounds dumb.

Science is willing to admit to it's wrong doings and false predictions. Science evolves while religion loses itself in archaism.

Would you kill your cousin?

Not at this point. no. But if I had had the knowledge before his birth that he would have such severe mental disabilities that would make his life miserable, I would have been all for abortion. Last thanksgiving, he sat on a bed upstairs the entire time, refusing to come down because he was "embarrassed" of himself. I love my cousin, and I always make it an effort to try to spend time with him when I can, but I love him enough to understand his misery, and would have said yes to ending it. Those of you who say you would rather just live with the disability know not the disability.

RT, can you honestly say that you would be ok with the thought that your parents considered killing you at one point? Can you really believe that you would be ok with that?

Yes. If they told me "I thought about aborting you at one point," I would, as I have said, understand why they would have considered it, and I would understand that they do not regret their decision to keep me.

:::OVERALL VIEW ON ABORTION::: (to clarify)

Whatever the purpose, I do not consider Embryotic or very early abortions to be wrong, as the subjects aborted have no sense of consciousness.

I believe that late term abortions can be justified if and only if there is a strong likely hood of an extreme case (such as mental illness, deformation, or terminal illness) or if the resulting birth would cause death to the mother.

BBJynne wrote:FIRST!

Hmm?

KristallNacht wrote:Who says science is absolute? In the definition of a Theory (like the Big Bang Theory, Theory of Relativity, etc) is that it is subject to change once information has been supplied to counteract it. But things become theories due to extensive research and the fact no other explanation works based on all knowledge.

Yes, but people sell things like Evolution as fact. They teach it in school as fact, and they treat anyone who disagrees like they are an idiot. My point is, Evolution, the Big Bang, they aren't fact, and shouldn't be represented as such. They are theories. And if there are people who choose not to believe them, they aren't crazy or anything. I mean, the single biggest piece of evidence for Evolution is the fossil record, yet the best excuse that scientists can offer for the Cambrian Explosion is that excessive oxygen in the atmosphere caused it. Darwin was convinced there was some missing link in the fossil record, one that would easily be found in a few decades. No such link has been found.

capn qwerty wrote:Ah, but there's the thing right there: we don't have all the facts, do we? We don't have all the information, so really, nothing can be ruled out as impossible. And I do mean nothing.

I think we can rule out Paris Hilton, but other than that, ya.

KristallNacht wrote:certain things can be. Like the Bible as a whole being something other than literature.

And yet, thus far, you've only managed to provide one example of ambiguity, and that example was not only a mix of two separate stories, but when separated, neither story was ambiguous.

PiElord wrote:Wait, so I really can fly?

*jumps off building*

With how little of the human mind that we can actually use, I would not be surprised if it were possible.

Don Corleone wrote:*gets shovel*
-_- dammit and he splattered too.

ReconToaster wrote: what is that? the 12th time you re-stated the question in your previous triple post? Next time, lets calm down with the repetitive restatements. You posted three times about how I "failed to define humanity." Give me a chance to answer please?

I apologize about triple posting, but my message was larger than TCF's post char limit. And I restated the question only as many times as you avoided (well, maybe twice as often, because I probably restated the question in response to several other people responding to you avoiding the question).

ReconToaster wrote: The reason I do not wish to respond to this question is because it assumes the existence of such a place as heaven. The fact that an embryo/early fetus is even not conscious is what makes abortion, in my mind, a non-issue. By implementing the existence of an afterlife, you are completely and efficiently voiding such an argument.

We've already dealt with this issue. If you knock a person unconscious, is it ok to then kill them, since they aren't conscious? Besides, the fetus becomes not only conscious, but also self-aware much before the third trimester. The third trimester simply marks when the nervous system works well enough for the fetus to feel pain. And you have yet again avoided the question (I know I'm restating it, but I wouldn't have to if you would stop avoiding it). If your parents aborted you, assuming that afterwards, you could consciously, sentiently, and intelligently think about it, how would you feel? Or here, maybe this makes it simpler. If it were your choice, would you want to be aborted.

ReconToaster wrote: now what were you saying about cop outs? The previously mentioned question resonates such a tactic with great strength!

God dammit Recon, we've asked a simple question only God knows how many times, and you still haven't answered it! By referring to all these technicalities like "I don't want to assume there is a Heaven" or "I wouldn't be capable of thought then", you are copping out from answering the question. Just answer it, rather than getting so caught up in every minute detail. It isn't a trick question, and the purpose is pretty obvious. Would you, or would you not, want to live?

ReconToaster wrote: To answer the question, If i was up in the "heaven" place of yours, I would indeed probably think something along the lines of "looks fun down there." In being presented with this question, I further understand the argument that you are both presenting, based on Christian faith.

All faith aside, the point we are trying to make is that if the baby were capable of making the choice, regardless of whether it was going to have some kind of disease or come out with misformed limbs, it would almost definitely choose to not be aborted. Thus, we don't feel that abortion should be legal. We don't want a sweeping ban, we're willing to make specific exceptions if the baby or mother might die during childbirth, and possibly even in the event of a rape, but other than that, we don't feel that there is cause enough to end a life, whether that life has just began or not.

ReconToaster wrote: You believe that this situation is a reality, and that when aborted babies ascend to "Heaven," they feel like they are "missing out." Unfortunately, this is merely YOUR BELIEF. I am sorry, but basing a law off of religion would be rather contradictory to the Constitution on which this country was built. You cannot impose your religion at a federal level.

That isn't the primary point. If we assume that an aborted baby were to ascend to Heaven, I very much doubt it would really care about missing out on Earth, since Heaven is a paradise to which there is no compare. We feel that it is murder, however, just like killing a small child (say under the age of would be. And that is the main reason we are against it, not because the child will feel bad in Heaven (there is no pain or regret or feeling of loss in Heaven).

ReconToaster wrote: If you had a solid argument with no Religious interventions such as "Heaven," maybe I would respect your views on the topics at hand.

The introduction of Heaven was to simply give a scenario in which you couldn't claim that you wouldn't be capable of thought and thus wouldn't care. It was an attempt to keep you from avoiding the question a second time.

ReconToaster wrote: Agreed. While I firmly hold the opinion that Christmas can be celebrated without religious involvement, I don't think it is necessary to strip it of its origins. I understand full well that I have the Christians (as well as the Celts
) to thank for the tradition that I now take part in. It's not that I do not recognize the influence (good and bad) of Christianity, I simply don't think that the religion itself is relevant in the modern Era.

Which is a fair.

ReconToaster wrote: For example, Religion may have promoted (not invented) morals, but at this point, Laws and morals are understood by general society, and can be promoted through non-religious means. I am Atheist. That does not mean that I think it's ok to torture small animals.

From what I can tell, morals are slowly slipping from society. Sex, the ultimate commitment (back before latex, at least) has been cheapened to the point where 70% or so don't make it through High School with their virginity intact, sex offenders have the ACLU fighting to ensure they get some of the lightest sentences out there and are back out on the streets in no time, abortion is legal for any reason here in the US (we are one of two countries in North and South America that allow abortion for any reason; the other? Canada (technically, Puerto Rico would make three, but technically, Puerto Rico is part of the US); even Mexico occasionally turns down on request abortions), divorce rates are sky rocketing, nearly any business is more worried about scamming you out of your money than selling you a product, etc.

ReconToaster wrote: How many times do I have to restate this? I am not saying that an adult human is not more important than an adult pig. What I am stating is that I do not believe there to be any inherent differences between a pig embryo and a human embryo. Neither of them have even obtained consciousness. The only real difference is in the structure of their DNA.

I was referring to your statement that you are sick of people feeling that their race is superior, which was a reference to humans vs pigs, since we have yet to discuss ethnicity at all.

ReconToaster wrote: I have the potential to be bitten by a radio-active spider. Is anyone treating me like spiderman?

In this case, potential and chance are different. When we say potential, we mean that if left alone, something will occur. So if you were left alone and not acted upon by an outside force, no, you would not be bitten by a radioactive spider, and no, you would not become Spider Man.

ReconToaster wrote: And I do not support late term abortions.

The problem is that fetuses become self-aware, gain all of their senses, and the like all before week 28.

ReconToaster wrote:Self awareness is not necessarily the same as consciousness. I'm sure a fish has consciousness, but I doubt it is aware of what it is in the scheme of the world. A fish runs on primal instinct, a trait we humans have surpassed. Still, this argument is not relevant to what we're discussion, as I was talking about consciousness.

You'll have to define "conscious", then, because the only real difference between an embryo that can be aborted and a baby that has been born is the ability to feel pain.

ReconToaster wrote: Science is willing to admit to it's wrong doings and false predictions. Science evolves while religion loses itself in archaism.

Darwin said that if the missing link wasn't found in a few decades, then evolution would be disproved and forgotten. Well, it's been a few decades, and rather than being disproved, science is opting to rather attempt to find other proof. Evolution is still taught as fact in schools.

ReconToaster wrote: Not at this point. no. But if I had had the knowledge before his birth that he would have such severe mental disabilities that would make his life miserable, I would have been all for abortion. Last thanksgiving, he sat on a bed upstairs the entire time, refusing to come down because he was "embarrassed" of himself. I love my cousin, and I always make it an effort to try to spend time with him when I can, but I love him enough to understand his misery, and would have said yes to ending it. Those of you who say you would rather just live with the disability know not the disability.

But if you killed your cousin now, you would save him years of misery.

ReconToaster wrote: Yes. If they told me "I thought about aborting you at one point," I would, as I have said, understand why they would have considered it, and I would understand that they do not regret their decision to keep me.

Which is why we asked the question, "what if they did abort you?"

ReconToaster wrote: :::OVERALL VIEW ON ABORTION::: (to clarify)

Whatever the purpose, I do not consider Embryotic or very early abortions to be wrong, as the subjects aborted have no sense of consciousness.

I believe that late term abortions can be justified if and only if there is a strong likely hood of an extreme case (such as mental illness, deformation, or terminal illness) or if the resulting birth would cause death to the mother.

The main points I disagree with on are early term abortion (while I'm more neutral concerning embryonic abortion, once it is a fetus, I firmly think it should be off limits) and deformation (I just don't think that anyone would truly not want to live, even if they were going to suffer; I think that people might choose to die to save another, and am ok with exceptions in the event that the baby or mother would die during or immediately after child birth, but other than that, I think a person would rather live with down's syndrome than die without having a chance to try living with it).

Rotaretilbo wrote:

capn qwerty wrote:Where does it say it was snowing (this is curiosity, not snide)?

And what does him being in a manger have to do with the time of the year?

Technically speaking, Christ was probably born in late spring. During the winter, sheep were kept under cover rather than outside. However, we don't know the exact date of his birth, so Christmas was used as a general appreciation for his birth. It's kind of like how Veteran's Day is on the day that World War I ended, but we celebrate all veterans, not just World War I veterans (who are few and far between).

CivBase wrote:I'd go get the bible and look it up, but I'm to lazy.

As far as I can tell, there is no specific reference to snow.

Yes, the true point of Christmas is to celebrate Jesus' birth. I kinda figured it would be sometime around winter (isn't there some reference to snow?) but it doesn't matter and has no relation to the current argument.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

ReconToaster wrote: Or it could just be that it was indeed the catholics in particular that adopted the holiday. Just because I say something about the catholic church does not mean I am insulting it. That's like saying that I'm being prejudice by simply stating that the pope is catholic. It sounds to me like you're the one with pre-existing negative views towards the catholic church.

I don't know about Civ, but I am not overly fond of the Roman Catholic church. Limbo, a Pope, the Seven Sacraments, none of this can be found in the Bible.

I don't folow the church. I go to church, I take part in church activity, but I don't just folow everything it says and does. Even though I go to a catholic church, I actualy listen to many lutheran and other religious radio stations.

ReconToaster wrote:Self awareness is not necessarily the same as consciousness. I'm sure a fish has consciousness, but I doubt it is aware of what it is in the scheme of the world. A fish runs on primal instinct, a trait we humans have surpassed. Still, this argument is not relevant to what we're discussion, as I was talking about consciousness.

doubt? Why do you doubt this? What has science done to show us that other animals aren't self aware? An instinct doesn't tell you how to deal with problems, something fish are capeable of. Fish could easily be self aware, and are definately conscious.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Yes, but people sell things like Evolution as fact. They teach it in school as fact, and they treat anyone who disagrees like they are an idiot. My point is, Evolution, the Big Bang, they aren't fact, and shouldn't be represented as such.

As NO science IS fact but only the most likely based on all known evidence, it can be taught. Second, as evolution is pretty much set in stone, and (as schools only teach microevolution) fits perfectly in with religious beliefs.

ReconToaster wrote:
To answer the question, If i was up in the "heaven" place of yours, I would indeed probably think something along the lines of "looks fun down there." In being presented with this question, I further understand the argument that you are both presenting, based on Christian faith.

CivBase wrote:
Yes, the true point of Christmas is to celebrate Jesus' birth. I kinda figured it would be sometime around winter (isn't there some reference to snow?) but it doesn't matter and has no relation to the current argument.

Its actually not. It's actually a holiday designed in nearly every aspect to compete with the pagan holiday, "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti."