[jlisenbe]

Anytime you have to appeal to the wisdom of Athos, you are done.

I'll post this again in the hope of a rational response as opposed to simple insults which you claim to oppose.

"But even that retreat doesn't help you.

A 2010 study from researchers at Italy’s University of Parma and University of Turin found that twins interact socially with each other as early as 14 weeks in the womb, according to Scientific American.

https://www.deseret.com/2015/11/9/20...ks-in-the-womb

How do you crawdad out of this one?"

Seriously. Do you still stand by your contention that unborn babies do not have a functioning brain? Really?

[Athos]

who has called for the execution of women who have abortions or for adulteresses but not adulterers? You say that this is true of "many prominent evangelicals", so surely you can name some of them. Even more to the point, other than a few scattered radicals (if there are any), has any prominent evangelical organization called for such actions?

Bakker and Falwell, to name just a couple. I suggest you look it up.

Please explain how science tells us that murder, rape, bank robbery, theft, lying under oath, and many other actions should be illegal.

Circular reasoning. You assume that the thing we're talking about is a crime and you equate it with others without any evidence. This is a purely emotional statement intended to stir emotions rather than convey information.

1. Your statement is a moral value. What science backs it up? 2. There is a vast body of law that tells us what we cannot do to another human being. Do those laws also invade another person's "nose"? Should a woman's rights over her own body end at her unborn child's "nose"?

Once again this is circular reasoning. The question is when a fetus becomes a human being, but you assume the answer that you prefer and use it to judge everyone else. And my statement is a constitutional one as well as a biblical one. Read what Paul said about freedom. Your freedom doesn't give you the right to tell someone else what to do with their body. That's sinning against another person.

Not following you on that one

I confess that genuinely surprises me. Let's try again. You told Athos

It amounts to asking others to believe something to be true for no other reason than that the writer believes it to be true.

Then you turned around and did exactly that when you said

But if you are genuinely opposed to unjust killings, then you will come out today in opposition to the unjust and cruel killings of hundreds of thousands of unborn human beings every year.

You are asking us to believe that a fetus is an "unborn human being" simply because you believe it. Many people don't, they consider it a "potential human being" but not a full person yet. Those people have at least as much science on their side as you have, in fact they have more. But you want us to believe the way you do simply because you believe it.
That's the same thing you said Athos was doing. I hope that clears it up.

And you dodged the fact that your statements are religious, not scientific, and thus have no place in lawmaking.

I see that you're engaged in a discussion/debate with another AMHD member who shall be nameless here. Been there, done that. Now I generally have him blocked/ignored with the occasional exception since he has proven to be incapable of rational discussion when the discussion is contrary to his unexamined belief.

He has every right to his belief but when it leads him to deny truth, it's very much "sound and fury, signifying nothing". This is not atypical among a certain brand of Christian commonly known as white evangelicals who practice a bronze-age version of religion. More on this topic later as time allows.

Unfortunately, he has strong tendencies to dissemble, divert, deflect and be dishonest when he finds himself confronted by a rational approach opposing his beliefs. You have neatly confronted those tendencies with a sharp thrust into the heart of the falsehoods. Better than most I've seen on these pages.

His arguments ARE circular which has been pointed out to him many times by myself and others, but, based on his replies, he doesn't seem to understand what is meant. I've come to the conclusion that he has difficulty responding to what has been posted indicating a reading comprehension problem. More likely, his beliefs prevent him from an understanding.

Nice job with your reply. I hope to see more posts like that.

[jlisenbe]

WG gives it up. Athos rambles, addresses nothing of substance, and fails. Now what?

His best attempt at Shakespearean writing. "You have neatly confronted those tendencies with a sharp thrust into the heart of the falsehoods." At least it is amusing.

What doest thou now?

[jlisenbe]

This was a comment by the unnamed AMHD member we call "Athos" to Tom.

"You never replied to my comment:"

Hmm. I wonder if he sees it?

[Wondergirl]

WG gives it up.

Nope. She is drinking hot cocoa. It's very cold up here in the north woods.

[jlisenbe]

Sounds like a great idea. It's been unusually cold down here, but bear in mind that we think 20 is a great freeze.

[jlisenbe]

Never ceases to interest me how people on this site get all wound up because you ask them a question. And rather than give an honest, rational answer to the question, people become angry and start making allegations of circular reasoning (in a question??) and "cherry picking", or simply resort to cheerleading. I thought it might prove interesting to post the unanswered questions just from this fairly short thread. Considering the post that, "You never replied to my comment," which was made earlier, I would have thought that answers were virtually mandatory.

1. No, it was a reply to your contention that, "Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science." So I'm asking you what science justifies laws against murder, rape, etc. Please stop dodging the question.
2. Two comments. 1. Your statement is a moral value. What science backs it up? There is a vast body of law that tells us what we cannot do to another human being. Do those laws also invade another person's "nose"? Should a woman's rights over her own body end at her unborn child's "nose"?
3. You have accused certain unnamed evangelicals of supporting the execution of certain individuals. Now that you seem to be on record for supporting abortion which results in the mass killings of unborn human beings, in what way do you possess any moral high ground in the discussion?
4. What science do you employ to deny the unborn child's humanity? (Asked because DW had posted, "Many people don't, they consider it a "potential human being" but not a full person yet. Those people have at least as much science on their side as you have, in fact they have more." If you know they "have more", then you must have some idea of what it is.
5. I was asking Athos to justify phony statements he had made about "white" evangelicals believing it is right to execute people for enmity against God.
6. If as you say, religion has no place in the formulation of law, how do you explain this? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The founding fathers understood quite well that the rights upon which laws are based are God given and thus unchangeable. Without those God-given rights, there is no foundation for law. Note that there was no appeal to science but rather to religion, the very opposite of what you advocate.
7. I note that you did not see fit to intervene about his comment. Wonder why? After all, wouldn't that "science has little to no bearing on the discussion," have been appropriate there?
8. You are really trying to say the unborn baby does not have a functioning brain???
9. Do you stand by your contention that unborn babies have no functioning brain???
10. But even that retreat doesn't help you. "A 2010 study from researchers at Italy’s University of Parma and University of Turin found that twins interact socially with each other as early as 14 weeks in the womb, according to Scientific American." How do you crawdad out of this one?
11. Seriously. Do you still stand by your contention that unborn babies do not have a functioning brain? Really?

[Wondergirl]

Hmmmmmm..... Let's cherry-pick some more....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

[jlisenbe]

You have refused to answer questions. That being the case, I really don't see any way to carry on any meaningful dialogue since you are, apparently, either too fearful or stubborn to do so. That's unfortunate since you do sometimes have some interesting observations.

[Wondergirl]

You have refused to answer questions. That being the case, I really don't see any way to carry on any meaningful dialogue since you are, apparently, either too fearful or stubborn to do so. That's unfortunate since you do sometimes have some interesting observations.

Now you're judge and jury? I haven't refused! I want to discuss issues, not throw rocks. See my Post #28.

[jlisenbe]

4 unanswered questions posed to you.

8. You are really trying to say the unborn baby does not have a functioning brain???
9. Do you stand by your contention that unborn babies have no functioning brain???
10. But even that retreat doesn't help you. "A 2010 study from researchers at Italy’s University of Parma and University of Turin found that twins interact socially with each other as early as 14 weeks in the womb, according to Scientific American." How do you crawdad out of this one?
11. Seriously. Do you still stand by your contention that unborn babies do not have a functioning brain? Really?

Making a claim of "cherry-picking" is not answering,

[Athos]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Thanks for posting this. It made me read a bit further into the exchange to see where it occurred.

The source of rights in US law is the consent of the governed, not the God of the Bible. This is most obvious when considering the Ten Commandments as being the source of law. Most of them would actually be illegal today or certainly not backed by the force of law.

Jefferson's Declaration of Independence is NOT the law. The Constitution is the law. To say the laws are "unchangeable" is to fly in the face of the Amendments to the Constitution.

The phrase "... all men are created equal..." does not deserve a comment since it comes from the pen of a slaveholder.

Thanks for posting this, WG.

[jlisenbe]

The cheerleader strikes again.

Now if WG will just answer some questions.

[Wondergirl]

8. You are really trying to say the unborn baby does not have a functioning brain???

What's it doing? How is it functioning? There are no stimuli in the womb, no sensory enticements.

9. Do you stand by your contention that unborn babies have no functioning brain???

See my reply above, #8.

10. But even that retreat doesn't help you. "A 2010 study from researchers at Italy’s University of Parma and University of Turin found that twins interact socially with each other as early as 14 weeks in the womb, according to Scientific American." How do you crawdad out of this one?

Socially? Card parties? Dancing? Board games? Duets? Vacation planning?

11. Seriously. Do you still stand by your contention that unborn babies do not have a functioning brain? Really?

Functioning to what end, for what purpose? How?

Making a claim of "cherry-picking" is not answering,

Neither is your cherry picking.

[jlisenbe]

What's it doing? How is it functioning? There are no stimuli in the womb, no sensory enticements.

No stimuli? Then how does it recognize its mother's voice immediately after birth? Come on. It functions like yours does. The baby hears, moves, responds to pain, and has brain waves that can be measured and analyzed just like an adult's brain. Those brain waves can be measured months before birth. https://heimduo.org/what-trimester-d...p-brain-waves/

Socially? Card parties? Dancing? Board games? Duets? Vacation planning?

Please read the article I linked for you. https://www.deseret.com/2015/11/9/20...ks-in-the-womb Babies in the womb do far less interacting than adults. So do two day olds. Would you kill them because they aren't planning a vacation or playing board games? How about the first grader who isn't yet dancing or playing duets? Kill them, too???

Functioning to what end, for what purpose? How?

About the same as a 2 day old. Should we kill them too since their brain does not function at the same level as an adult? It's amazing how far those who want to kill unborn babies will go to try and justify their beliefs.

I do commend you for taking a shot at it. It's more than your buddies have done.

[Athos]

The cheerleader strikes again.

If this is a reference to me, this cheerleader has just demolished your argument referenced by WG. As usual, your comment has nothing to do with supporting your position. You're a one-note Charlie.

[jlisenbe]

This is plainly not true. "The source of rights in US law is the consent of the governed, not the God of the Bible." While the D of I is not itself law, it describes the foundation of law and the source of rights (a "Creator"), and the men who signed it did not agree with your idea of what the source of rights is and would have been horrified to read your view as everyone else should be. If our rights are dependent on the views of the majority (consent of the governed), which fluctuates as the wind on the seashore, then we are in big trouble.

Now I would agree with you that the Bible itself is not the source of law. Yes, the Constitution is the bedrock of our laws. No one has suggested the law is unchangeable so I don't know where that came from.

You do realize that the expression "consent of the governed" is found in the Declaration, a document which you said has no force of law? If that's the case, then why did you appeal to it?

The primary disagreement was with DW's assertion that science determines law. That is nonsense. It's why I asked him the question I did, and I suspect why he has avoided answering it. And I say that as an admirer of DW. Perhaps he expressed himself awkwardly.

Sorry, but you demolished nothing. At least you engaged, and perhaps have shed your "cheerleader" designation.

[jlisenbe]

This is the "consent of the governed" passage. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Had nothing to do with rights.

[Wondergirl]

Had nothing to do with rights.

Women's rights? "All MEN are created equal"? I.e. all WHITE MEN are created equal.

[jlisenbe]

Two possible answers.

1. "Men" was meant in the generic sense as of "mankind". It is certainly true that women had many rights from the very beginning.
2. It's also possible that it was an unfortunate sign of the times and had to be corrected, as it was, as time went by.

What do you think?