In the theocracy of Iran, the morality police arrested a 22-year-old woman for not properly wearing her hijab (head covering). Three days later in a hospital while in police custody, the young woman died. Iranian citizens took to the streets to protest the death.

Protestors were arrested. One protestor has been sentenced to be executed for the crime of “enmity against God”.

Iran is a theocracy governed by Muslim fundamentalists. All religions have fundamentalists, including the US where they are generally known as white evangelicals.

This US group has made itself more prominent by engaging in politics where their platform is based on Christian Nationalism – the US becoming a Christian country in governance. Their chief mission is to prohibit abortion for any reason in the entire country.

More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show “enmity against God”. As an organization without power, they cannot (yet) carry out such a policy, but their theocratic beliefs completely support such a policy. This policy is found in their belief that non-Christians will suffer for all eternity in a torture chamber (hell) for the crime of “enmity against God”. It is a small step once in power to implement this policy in the secular manner of judicial (official) murder.

Words to the wise.

Quote:

---

More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show “enmity against God”.

---

A completely absurd allegation for which there is no evidence.

Quote:

---

This policy is found in their belief that non-Christians will suffer for all eternity in a torture chamber (hell) for the crime of “enmity against God”. It is a small step once in power to implement this policy in the secular manner of judicial (official) murder.

---

Similarly untrue and ridiculously so. 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.

This is a common strategy used on this site. It amounts to asking others to believe something to be true for no other reason than that the writer believes it to be true. There will be no support offered, and quite likely this will not be responded to since there is really no rational defense for such outlandish statements.

Quote:

---

quite likely this will not be responded to since there is really no rational defense for such outlandish statements.

---

Bingo.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show “enmity against God”.

---

A completely absurd allegation for which there is no evidence.

---

Many prominent evangelicals have called for the execution of women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them. Others have called for adulteresses to be executed (but not adulterers, funny how that works). We've seen what happens when the church gets political power. It was called the Inquisition, among other atrocities.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Funny, this is exactly what you accused Athos of when you said

Quote:

---

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

---

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. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. They knew what they were talking about when they wrote that because it had been less than 200 years since their ancestors fled the horrors of state religion. You are welcome to your religious view, and Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But your free exercise ends where that woman's nose begins, to paraphrase Paul Harvey.

Quote:

---

Many prominent evangelicals have called for the execution of women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them. Others have called for adulteresses to be executed (but not adulterers, funny how that works).

---

My comment was directed at the statement by Athos concerning, "executing those who show 'enmity against God'”. But at any rate, 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?

Quote:

---

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. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion.

---

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

Quote:

---

But your free exercise ends where that woman's nose begins,

---

Two comments. 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"?

Quote:

---

Funny, this is exactly what you accused Athos of when you said

---

Not following you on that one.

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?

Sincerely hope your daughter is doing better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. They knew what they were talking about when they wrote that because it had been less than 200 years since their ancestors fled the horrors of state religion. You are welcome to your religious view, and Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But your free exercise ends where that woman's nose begins, to paraphrase Paul Harvey.

---

This is he essential point that Christian Nationalists fail to understand. They have a strong tendency to discard anything that does not support their beliefs. Science and/or rationality is often wasted on them, but one perseveres.

Quote:

---

This is he essential point that Christian Nationalists fail to understand. They have a strong tendency to discard anything that does not support their beliefs. Science and/or rationality is often wasted on them, but one perseveres.

---

Since no one here is advocating for Christian Nationalism, then your comment is...well.

Regardless, no one here has offered any argument based on science, so while that could be a valid approach elsewhere, it has no merit here until someone actually DOES offer something logical based on "science and/or rationality".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Not following you on that one

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Science and rationality are on my side. 1. The fertilized egg has a completely unique DNA code that never changes throughout its life and is a completely human one. 2. That the fertilized egg is human is self-evident. To suggest it is "potentially human" has no standing at all. What does it mean to be "potentially" human? 3. The fertilized egg contains all of the attributes of living organisms. 4. The fertilized egg begins the process of growth and maturation that will go on for many years. 5. No one presents such a silly argument for any other species. We don't look at eagle eggs as "potential" eagles. It is recognized that they young eagle is an eagle from day one. This line of faulty reasoning is used only of humans for an obvious reason. 6. The same argument has been used for centuries. Black africans were not really human, so it was OK to enslave them. Enemy troops were "Gooks", "Krauts", "Japs", and so forth to make it seem less dehumanizing to kill them. This is the same strategy.

What science do you employ to deny the unborn child's humanity?

Besides all of that, my complaint was that Athos, when challenged to support his beliefs, evidently could not do so. As you can see above, I am happy to engage in this discussion.

Quote:

---

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

---

You said my statements were religious, not me. 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. It was a question based upon rational thinking.

Quote:

---

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

---

You do realize that Falwell is long dead and Bakker hasn't been listened to in three decades? Please don't employ the tired old strategy of asking me to look up your information. It certainly makes it appear that you want me to look for that which you cannot find. It just seems to be a dodge. I will flatly state that I don't believe you can find a single instance of a prominent evangelical leader calling for the execution of women caught in adultery but suggesting the men go free, and certainly no evangelical group does so. That was your contention.

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.

Quote:

---

Your freedom doesn't give you the right to tell someone else what to do with their body. That's sinning against another person.

---

I agree with that. No woman has the right to do with her baby's body as she sees fit. Well said, though you likely did not mean it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What science do you employ to deny the unborn child's humanity?.

---

Bear in mind what board this is posted on, Religion > Christianity, rather than Current Events so science has little to no bearing on the discussion.

Quote:

---

Bear in mind what board this is posted on, Religion > Christianity, rather than Current Events so science has little to no bearing on the discussion.

---

Read the discussion and you will see why the question is being asked. Good grief. My question is asked of DW who said, "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." He then 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." So I responded to that scientific remark. 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?

Quote:

---

No one presents such a silly argument for any other species. We don't look at eagle eggs as "potential" eagles. It is recognized that they young eagle is an eagle from day one.

---

We look at eagle eggs as potential eagles. And yes, a hatched eaglet is an eagle.

Genesis 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.”

Only when the fetus is born and has taken its first breath is it considered a human being, a living soul.

Quote:

---

We look at eagle eggs as potential eagles. And yes, a hatched eaglet is an eagle.

---

You do today since it is convenient.

As to the living breath argument, it has been refuted here many times. Adam was made of the dust of the ground and had no life of any kind until God breathed into him. That is not true of anyone else after him. You are trying to make the silly argument that the unborn baby is not even alive. Even pro-abortionists don't go that far since it is clearly ridiculous. And that is not meant in an ugly way. You are just making an argument that makes no sense when you contend that an unborn baby, one day prior to delivery, with a heartbeat, blood circulation, metabolism, brain waves, awareness of surroundings, and growing every minute is not actually alive.

Using that logic, when a person stops breathing, he/she is no longer alive. That is, of course, not true. Otherwise, mouth to mouth rescutation would never be practiced.

People in surgery sometimes have their breathing stopped, sometimes for hours. Are they no longer alive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You are trying to make the silly argument that the unborn baby is not even alive.

---

The unborn baby is human and alive, but is not yet a breathing soul with a functioning brain.

Quote:

---

Using that logic, when a person stops breathing, he/she is no longer alive.

---

Alive, yes, but not functioning in a human way. No emotions, no eye contact, no smiling or frowning, no intellectual discourse, no pattycake, no joke telling, no memory. Have been there myself in an ICU.

How many unhatched chicks did you eat for breakfast? You did call them chicks, of course, not eggs.

Quote:

---

The unborn baby is human and alive, but is not yet a breathing soul with a functioning brain.

---

You are really trying to say the unborn baby does not have a functioning brain??? You do realize that is ridiculous?

Well, at least you do agree it is a living human. That's progress.

Quote:

---

Alive, yes, but not functioning in a human way. No emotions, no eye contact, no smiling or frowning, no intellectual discourse, no pattycake, no joke telling, no memory.

---

So when you were there yourself, you were no longer a living soul. Interesting.

Quote:

---

How many unhatched chicks did you eat for breakfast? You did call them chicks, of course, not eggs.

---

I don't eat unhatched chickens. If I did find such an egg, I doubt I would say, "Oh look! A potential chicken!!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You are really trying to say the unborn baby does not have a functioning brain??? You do realize that is ridiculous?

---

Who is it interacting with?

Quote:

---

So when you were there yourself, you were no longer a living soul. Interesting.

---

Cherry picker! A living soul is breathing. (Gen. 2:7 -- breath of life = living soul) I was breathing.

Quote:

---

I don't eat unhatched chickens.

---

That's exactly what you eat, according to your reasoning.

Quote:

---

Who is it interacting with?

---

You are a counselor, and you don't know about how babies are often born able to recognize their mother's voice, and in some cases the father's voice? Wow. You are light years behind the times.

Quote:

---

Since the maternal voice is audible in utero, an infant starts to recognize their mother’s voice from the third trimester. The voice that they hear is muffled and low, and they can also hear their mother’s heartbeat. Soon after birth, studies have shown that a baby will recognize their mother’s voice and will expend great efforts to hear her voice better over unfamiliar female voices.

---

https://babyschool.yale.edu/does-my-...9s%20heartbeat.

Might add this.

Quote:

---

The cerebrum will begin to develop grooves and ridges and separate into the left brain and right brain. The cerebellum is the fastest-growing part of the brain in the third trimester. This is the part responsible for motor control, so your baby will begin to move more, wiggling fingers and toes, stretching, and kicking.

---

Just amazing you know so little about this and yet claim to be a counselor and well-educated. Have you been kidding about all of that?
Do you stand by your contention that unborn babies have no functioning brain???

https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnan...0%99s%20weight.

Quote:

---

Cherry picker! A living soul is breathing. I was breathing.

---

So what was your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You are a counselor, and you don't know about how babies are often born able to recognize their mother's voice, and in some cases the father's voice? Wow. You are light years behind the times.

---

That's not considered interacting.

Sure it's not. You went from the unborn not even having a functional brain to not having interactions when, of course, the baby is in the womb. So hearing and recognizing voices is the result of a non-functional brain. Just amazing.

But even that retreat doesn't help you.

Quote:

---

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?

You still continue to twist words and shout out nonsense. Like Athos has said more than once, you have trouble with reading comprehension -- which, btw, leads to cherry picking.

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Not following you on that one

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

WG gives it up.

---

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

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

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?

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."

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl;3886883[/QUOTE

"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.

The cheerleader strikes again.

Now if WG will just answer some questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

See my reply above, #8.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

---

Neither is your cherry picking.

Quote:

---

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/

Quote:

---

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???

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Had nothing to do with rights.

---

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

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?