[Athos]

If you don't know, then how would you know that a zygote is not an actual human life? In other words, it is quite possible that you could be wrong since, after all, you don't know.

What a mess of BS! Obviously, the question you posed was POST-ZYGOTE.

You have this habit of re-writing what others have said to fit your argument. I've noticed it almost from the beginning when you skated around Bible questions. Now I see that others here are experiencing the same thing, and calling you out over it, but it doesn't seem to do any good.

As to viability, if medicine is some day able to take a zygote and have it develop to maturity outside the womb, then would that make the zygote a human life since it would then meet the definition of viability?

What is your definition of viability?

That's a legitimate question since medical science is continually pushing the age of viability further and further back. It seems strange to me to attach the value of human life to the abilities of medical science.

Is a clone a human life?

[Wondergirl]

You do realize that your link added nothing to our conversation about what constitutes human life? It was simply a basic discussion of the development of the zygote, none of which was in debate here, and it added nothing to the statement of Athos that he did not know when human life began, so I'm not sure of what your purpose was.

The site affirms what you posted, that a zygote is the beginning of a baby.

As to Hitler's supposed mental illness, I long for the day on this site when people will learn to defend their assertions with something other than the ubiquitous (on this site) plea to "google it". If you have some information, then present it. Otherwise, I still see your diagnosis as pure speculation.

Googling will tell you that diagnosis is generally accepted.

[jlisenbe]

The site affirms what you posted, that a zygote is the beginning of a baby.

Then why did you direct it to me? It was given as a response to my post. If you thought Athos was wrong, then why not direct it at him? An any rate, I understand your point and it is valid, but my statement was much more to the effect that the zygote is a human life. It doesn't seem like a great difference between the two, but some on this site will nitpick it so I try to be careful with my terms.

As to Hitler's supposed mental illness, I long for the day on this site when people will learn to defend their assertions with something other than the ubiquitous (on this site) plea to "google it". If you have some information, then present it. Otherwise, I still see your diagnosis as pure speculation.
Googling will tell you that diagnosis is generally accepted.

Please read my comment above.

Actually this is what I wrote about my position.

'Maybe that's the difference in us, as some see in absolutes, and some see in the full range where there is a middle ground. We have debated when life begins, and some say when the egg is fertilized, some say when it leaves the womb.

I will be honest and abortions after 6 to 8 weeks just creep me out. Cleaning out a zygote not so much. Life can be precious, to some all life is, but of the more than a hundred and 50 million women and a falling...so on and so forth.

I did not misrepresent your views. As I plainly said, "but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe." Now you don't like being called out on it. I wouldn't either if I believed what you claim to believe. That's why I don't believe that. If you can't handle it, then believe something more humane and reasonable.

[jlisenbe]

What a mess of BS! Obviously, the question you posed was POST-ZYGOTE.

You have this habit of re-writing what others have said to fit your argument. I've noticed it almost from the beginning when you skated around Bible questions. Now I see that others here are experiencing the same thing, and calling you out over it, but it doesn't seem to do any good

This was my question. "then when does it actually become human life?" There was nothing about "post-zygote". It was a simple, straight-forward question. At any rate, if you don't know, then you don't know. That was your statement.

As to skating around Bible questions, where is your reply to the Matthew 25 question?

Stop whining. It gets old. Tal alleged I was changing his quotes. That turned out to be plainly not true. He, nor you, nor for that matter most of us, like having to accept the consequences of beliefs.

[Wondergirl]

Then why did you direct it to me? It was given as a response to my post. If you thought Athos was wrong, then why not direct it at him? An any rate, I understand your point and it is valid, but my statement was much more to the effect that the zygote is a human life. It doesn't seem like a great difference between the two, but some on this site will nitpick it so I try to be careful with my terms.

Please read my comment aboI did not misrepresent your views. As I plainly said, "but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe." Now you don't like being called out on it. I wouldn't either if I believed what you claim to believe. That's why I don't believe that. If you can't handle it, then believe something more humane and reasonable.

I have absolutely NO idea what you're raging on and on about.

[jlisenbe]

I have absolutely NO idea what you're raging on and on about.

The second paragraph was directed at Tal's quote. As to my reply to you, I don't think I raged about anything, but I guess that's how you see it. If so, it was not intentionally done that way.

[talaniman]

I did not misrepresent your views. As I plainly said, "but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe." Now you don't like being called out on it. I wouldn't either if I believed what you claim to believe. That's why I don't believe that. If you can't handle it, then believe something more humane and reasonable.

I'll stick with what I beleive in thank you. That I can handle, whatever you rave about, I can handle that too. Some full moon we had, wasn't it, you lunatic. See I do understand you better than you understand yourself. Now go shave your ears.

[Athos]

This was my question. "then when does it actually become human life?" There was nothing about "post-zygote". It was a simple, straight-forward question. At any rate, if you don't know, then you don't know. That was your statement.

You took it out of context altering its meaning. I'm not surprised.

As to skating around Bible questions, where is your reply to the Matthew 25 question?

I am waiting for a reply from a scholar who is verifying (or refuting) an observation of mine.

He, nor you, nor for that matter most of us, like having to accept the consequences of beliefs.

I'm not sure what you mean, but when I am proven wrong, I accept it and adjust my beliefs.

(Is a clone human life?)

[jlisenbe]

I'll stick with what I beleive in thank you. That I can handle,

Evidently not. You sure get upset about it when someone calls your hand on it.

Some full moon we had, wasn't it, you lunatic. See I do understand you better than you understand yourself. Now go shave your ears.

As I said earlier, when a person resorts to name calling, it demonstrates that they have nothing useful to say and have lost the argument.

I am waiting for a reply from a scholar who is verifying (or refuting) an observation of mine.

OK. In the meantime, you might want to ask him/her about Matthew 13. "Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

[Athos]

they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"

Please tell me - How does a day-old baby sin?

[talaniman]

Evidently not. You sure get upset about it when someone calls your hand on it.

Is that what you call your responses? Naw, I never take those ranting personally, that's just the way lunatics express themselves. You really think your responses upset me?
PS

It's not name calling if it's TRUE.

[jlisenbe]

Please tell me - How does a day-old baby sin?

You forget. I told you two weeks ago that I would not discuss this further with you until you gathered up your courage and answered the Matthew 25 question.

Is that what you call your responses? Naw, I never take those ranting personally, that's just the way lunatics express themselves. You really think your responses upset me?
PS

It's not name calling if it's TRUE.

Like I said. Name calling is the result of a lost argument. You evidently can't reason well enough to defend your positions so you just resort to hatred. Sad. I do think you are capable of better. But there has been one positive out of all of this. Reading your posts has given me a fresh view of the ugliness and ignorance of name calling. I despise it now even more than I did.

[talaniman]

That's too bad you mistake my humor for name calling even if there is enough evidence to assign you the label. Same for the dufus and you don't have to be a humorless sourpus about it.

It's not name calling if it's TRUE.

[Athos]

You forget. I told you two weeks ago that I would not discuss this further with you until you gathered up your courage and answered the Matthew 25 question.

Lol - answer enough.

...name calling. I despise it now even more than I did.

Then why do you do it?

[jlisenbe]

That's too bad you mistake my humor for name calling even if there is enough evidence to assign you the label. Same for the dufus and you don't have to be a humorless sourpus about it.

Yeah. I guess that excuse makes sense to some people.

Then why do you do it?

I don't believe I do. I did it once with you a couple of days ago. You called me on it and I immediately agreed with you and apologized. You can feel free to call me on it any time you want. I suppose you could make an issue about the "liberal amigos". "Amigos", of course, means "friends", so I wouldn't think that would be a problem, but if it is, I'll gladly stop. I do despise it.

[talaniman]

Anybody care to comment on Mulvaney admitting the dufus held up military money for Ukraine yesterday because he wanted them to turn over the server the DNC used in 2016?

Or maybe the announcement the G7 meeting would be held at a dufus golf course?

I'm biased because I know the dufus is a lying crook!

[Athos]

Anybody care to comment on Mulvaney admitting the dufus held up military money for Ukraine yesterday because he wanted them to turn over the server the DNC used in 2016?

Or maybe the announcement the G7 meeting would be held at a dufus golf course?

I'm biased because I know the dufus is a lying crook!

Not only that - he tried to walk it back last night. MAJOR foot-in-mouth disease. Dufus hints at inviting his pal Putin to G7.

[jlisenbe]

Or Hillary's incredible belief that both Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard are Russian agents whose purpose is to run a third party campaign to ensure Trump's reelection. And you wonder why so many people voted for Trump?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/polit...ard/ar-AAIZfVe

[Athos]

Or Hillary's incredible belief that both Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard are Russian agents whose purpose is to run a third party campaign to ensure Trump's reelection. And you wonder why so many people voted for Trump?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/polit...ard/ar-AAIZfVe

As usual, you got it wrong.

She said Russian "assets" not "agents". Huge difference. The suggestion is that Putin et al are pushing her for a third party candidate thus taking away votes from the Democrats and helping to re-elect Trump. You do know they interfered in 2016 on behalf of Trump, don't you?

So many people voted for Trump because they welcomed Russian interference? Maybe you want to re-write that.

[jlisenbe]

She said Russian "assets" not "agents". Huge difference. The suggestion is that Putin et al are pushing her for a third party candidate thus taking away votes from the Democrats and helping to re-elect Trump. You do know they interfered in 2016 on behalf of Trump, don't you?

An asset is something owned by another person. So she is saying the Russkies own, in some way, those two women. And we are supposed to somehow feel better about that?

So many people voted for Trump because they welcomed Russian interference? Maybe you want to re-write that.

I might want to re-write it if I had written it. And you want to complain about misrepresenting someone's statements??? I said, " And you wonder why so many people voted for Trump?" Considering the near hysterical preoccupation HC has with Russian assets, I can only breathe a sigh of relief that she did not win. With all of his problems, Trump is a universe better than HC would have been.

Trump inherited Obama's economy and made it better. Historic lows in unemployment sound pretty good to me.