The Great Presidential Debate

[comic boy]

Life beginning with conception is purely a religious notion , nothing more, It is not a fundamental truth in any shape or form.

Life begins with issue #1 and ends with the last issue. It's a fairly logical definition.

So, does this mean to an athiest ... nothing is living?

Why do you bring Atheism into a discussion that you earlier insisted was not religious

[chang50]

Life beginning with conception is purely a religious notion , nothing more, It is not a fundamental truth in any shape or form.

Life begins with issue #1 and ends with the last issue. It's a fairly logical definition.

So, does this mean to an athiest ... nothing is living?

Why do you bring Atheism into a discussion that you earlier insisted was not religious

And in a totally nonsensical manner?

[comic boy]

I'll just wait here for my apology.

For what? I'm still not sure what your point of weighing in here was. Comicboy stated that life didn't begin at conception. You posted a picture of some items and clarified that a worm isn't a dress and an egg is not a chicken (pretty logical), though this had nothing to do with whether life began at conception or not. Now you are saying that you believe sperm and eggs are alive which means you would also believe that life exists at the point of conception. Do you believe life exists at conception?

Interesting that you take exception with my opinion , despite it not being a stand alone statement but simply a rebuttal of Tzors earlier outlandish claim. Are opinions only to be questioned when they clash with your particular bias ?

[thegreekdog]

It's not so much that I think Biden is doing the wrong thing from a policy and government perspective (because I don't). I think Biden's explanation defines him as someone who is not Catholic and caused me to yell at the screen. I literally yelled "Then you're not Catholic."

My position is that Catholics should be able to separate their lives in government from their religious lives.

Ok me no understand? Because Biden pretty much said exactly this. That he is a Catholic, but keeps his personal faith separate from his Government life. So why are you yelling at the screen when he said essentially exactly what you feel?

Because I get accused of not being a real Catholic all the time. And I'm not a politician in a national office.

As to Night Strike and tzor: This is not the thread to argue pro-life and pro-choice. I've made my feelings on abortion well known in other threads. To sum up my views: abortion should not be a religious issue because of the establishment clause; to the extent that a fetus can live outside the womb at any time it should be considered a viable life and abortion should not occur (this is not a religious argument, it is a scientific one). So, if someday science advances such that a one week old fetus can exist outside the womb, choosing an abortion should be illegal at that point. At least in my view.

[Woodruff]

It is not a forgone logical conclusion.

You can argue whether or not conception defines if the fetus is a person but as far as whether or not life has begun is a completely different story. Your cute little pictures don't really relate to whether conception is the start of life or not.

By that standard, a sperm is life. Should masturbation be illegal?

(I suppose I may be asking that question of the wrong crowd, now that I think about it.)

[Woodruff]

To sum up my views: abortion should not be a religious issue because of the establishment clause; to the extent that a fetus can live outside the womb at any time it should be considered a viable life and abortion should not occur (this is not a religious argument, it is a scientific one). So, if someday science advances such that a one week old fetus can exist outside the womb, choosing an abortion should be illegal at that point. At least in my view.

I tend to agree with this position, though my further concern would be financial support of that "saved fetus". Abortions do sometimes happen unfortunately due to financial situations and this does not alleviate that problem. Unless that problem is alleviated, abortions will still happen, they will simply be extraordinarily dangerous to the mother. I'm not saying at all that I agree with that choice, but it is a reality.

[patrickaa317]

It is not a forgone logical conclusion.

You can argue whether or not conception defines if the fetus is a person but as far as whether or not life has begun is a completely different story. Your cute little pictures don't really relate to whether conception is the start of life or not.

By that standard, a sperm is life. Should masturbation be illegal?

(I suppose I may be asking that question of the wrong crowd, now that I think about it.)

Masturbation is quite different than abortion, no? If you are willing to put them in the same category, please elaborate.

and on your second comment.

[patrickaa317]

I'll just wait here for my apology.

For what? I'm still not sure what your point of weighing in here was. Comicboy stated that life didn't begin at conception. You posted a picture of some items and clarified that a worm isn't a dress and an egg is not a chicken (pretty logical), though this had nothing to do with whether life began at conception or not. Now you are saying that you believe sperm and eggs are alive which means you would also believe that life exists at the point of conception. Do you believe life exists at conception?

Interesting that you take exception with my opinion , despite it not being a stand alone statement but simply a rebuttal of Tzors earlier outlandish claim. Are opinions only to be questioned when they clash with your particular bias ?

Do you often question opinions you agree with?

[Woodruff]

It is not a forgone logical conclusion.

You can argue whether or not conception defines if the fetus is a person but as far as whether or not life has begun is a completely different story. Your cute little pictures don't really relate to whether conception is the start of life or not.

By that standard, a sperm is life. Should masturbation be illegal?

(I suppose I may be asking that question of the wrong crowd, now that I think about it.)

Masturbation is quite different than abortion, no? If you are willing to put them in the same category, please elaborate.

and on your second comment.

You made it clear that what was important was that "life has begun". A sperm is alive.

[Woodruff]

I'll just wait here for my apology.

For what? I'm still not sure what your point of weighing in here was. Comicboy stated that life didn't begin at conception. You posted a picture of some items and clarified that a worm isn't a dress and an egg is not a chicken (pretty logical), though this had nothing to do with whether life began at conception or not. Now you are saying that you believe sperm and eggs are alive which means you would also believe that life exists at the point of conception. Do you believe life exists at conception?

Interesting that you take exception with my opinion , despite it not being a stand alone statement but simply a rebuttal of Tzors earlier outlandish claim. Are opinions only to be questioned when they clash with your particular bias ?

Do you often question opinions you agree with?

I try to.

[patrickaa317]

It is not a forgone logical conclusion.

You can argue whether or not conception defines if the fetus is a person but as far as whether or not life has begun is a completely different story. Your cute little pictures don't really relate to whether conception is the start of life or not.

By that standard, a sperm is life. Should masturbation be illegal?

(I suppose I may be asking that question of the wrong crowd, now that I think about it.)

Masturbation is quite different than abortion, no? If you are willing to put them in the same category, please elaborate.

and on your second comment.

You made it clear that what was important was that "life has begun". A sperm is alive.

So do you feel masturbation is different than abortion? I certainly do. Since you made the comparison first, I'll let you explain why you feel they are the same or why they are different.

[patrickaa317]

I'll just wait here for my apology.

For what? I'm still not sure what your point of weighing in here was. Comicboy stated that life didn't begin at conception. You posted a picture of some items and clarified that a worm isn't a dress and an egg is not a chicken (pretty logical), though this had nothing to do with whether life began at conception or not. Now you are saying that you believe sperm and eggs are alive which means you would also believe that life exists at the point of conception. Do you believe life exists at conception?

Interesting that you take exception with my opinion , despite it not being a stand alone statement but simply a rebuttal of Tzors earlier outlandish claim. Are opinions only to be questioned when they clash with your particular bias ?

Do you often question opinions you agree with?

I try to.

Really? Is that why you are usually following the likes of nightstrike, phatscotty, & johnblue questioning their statements?

[Juan_Bottom]

You actually made the comparison first without realizing it.
I tried pointing it out to you.

[Woodruff]

I'll just wait here for my apology.

For what? I'm still not sure what your point of weighing in here was. Comicboy stated that life didn't begin at conception. You posted a picture of some items and clarified that a worm isn't a dress and an egg is not a chicken (pretty logical), though this had nothing to do with whether life began at conception or not. Now you are saying that you believe sperm and eggs are alive which means you would also believe that life exists at the point of conception. Do you believe life exists at conception?

Interesting that you take exception with my opinion , despite it not being a stand alone statement but simply a rebuttal of Tzors earlier outlandish claim. Are opinions only to be questioned when they clash with your particular bias ?

Do you often question opinions you agree with?

I try to.

Really? Is that why you are usually following the likes of nightstrike, phatscotty, & johnblue questioning their statements?

Did I say I ONLY try to question opinions I agree with?

Perhaps you've not seen me question pimpdave, PLAYER or Juan_Bottom, three individuals with whom I tend to agree on a great many things?

Questioning what they say doesn't mean I'm not going to ultimately agree with them. It means that I consider what they're saying and ask questions about it regarding parts that I may or may not necessarily agree with.

[patrickaa317]

You actually made the comparison first without realizing it.
I tried pointing it out to you.

Really? Where did I say anything about masturbation being comparative to abortion?

[Woodruff]

It is not a forgone logical conclusion.

You can argue whether or not conception defines if the fetus is a person but as far as whether or not life has begun is a completely different story. Your cute little pictures don't really relate to whether conception is the start of life or not.

By that standard, a sperm is life. Should masturbation be illegal?

(I suppose I may be asking that question of the wrong crowd, now that I think about it.)

Masturbation is quite different than abortion, no? If you are willing to put them in the same category, please elaborate.

and on your second comment.

You made it clear that what was important was that "life has begun". A sperm is alive.

So do you feel masturbation is different than abortion? I certainly do. Since you made the comparison first, I'll let you explain why you feel they are the same or why they are different.

I simply responded to the statement you made. Do you want to change that statement?

[patrickaa317]

For what? I'm still not sure what your point of weighing in here was. Comicboy stated that life didn't begin at conception. You posted a picture of some items and clarified that a worm isn't a dress and an egg is not a chicken (pretty logical), though this had nothing to do with whether life began at conception or not. Now you are saying that you believe sperm and eggs are alive which means you would also believe that life exists at the point of conception. Do you believe life exists at conception?

Interesting that you take exception with my opinion , despite it not being a stand alone statement but simply a rebuttal of Tzors earlier outlandish claim. Are opinions only to be questioned when they clash with your particular bias ?

Do you often question opinions you agree with?

I try to.

Really? Is that why you are usually following the likes of nightstrike, phatscotty, & johnblue questioning their statements?

Did I say I ONLY try to question opinions I agree with?

Perhaps you've not seen me question pimpdave, PLAYER or Juan_Bottom, three individuals with whom I tend to agree on a great many things?

Questioning what they say doesn't mean I'm not going to ultimately agree with them. It means that I consider what they're saying and ask questions about it regarding parts that I may or may not necessarily agree with.

I can't recall a post (let alone multiple) where you have questioned any of those three though I will admit I am not as much of an off topic person as many of the rest of you. I'd say 75% of your posts that I have seen are in response to the three individuals I mentioned.

[patrickaa317]

You can argue whether or not conception defines if the fetus is a person but as far as whether or not life has begun is a completely different story. Your cute little pictures don't really relate to whether conception is the start of life or not.

By that standard, a sperm is life. Should masturbation be illegal?

(I suppose I may be asking that question of the wrong crowd, now that I think about it.)

Masturbation is quite different than abortion, no? If you are willing to put them in the same category, please elaborate.

and on your second comment.

You made it clear that what was important was that "life has begun". A sperm is alive.

So do you feel masturbation is different than abortion? I certainly do. Since you made the comparison first, I'll let you explain why you feel they are the same or why they are different.

I simply responded to the statement you made. Do you want to change that statement?

Almost Woody, almost!



So do you care to answer the question now? Do you feel masturbation is different than abortion?

I almost feel like you've taken on the role you have accused Scotty of on many occassion, and I'm playing the role of you!

[Juan_Bottom]

You actually made the comparison first without realizing it.
I tried pointing it out to you.

Really? Where did I say anything about masturbation being comparative to abortion?

Right here:

You can argue whether or not conception defines if the fetus is a person but as far as whether or not life has begun is a completely different story. Your cute little pictures don't really relate to whether conception is the start of life or not.

You should definitely go back to the first picture and re-read all that was said. You've been trapped by your own statements and you don't even realize it. Woody does but I honestly don't think he even cares. He was just off-handily pointing it out to you in a nicer way than I did.

[patrickaa317]

You actually made the comparison first without realizing it.
I tried pointing it out to you.

Really? Where did I say anything about masturbation being comparative to abortion?

Right here:

You can argue whether or not conception defines if the fetus is a person but as far as whether or not life has begun is a completely different story. Your cute little pictures don't really relate to whether conception is the start of life or not.

You should definitely go back to the first picture and re-read all that was said. You've been trapped by your own statements and you don't even realize it. Woody does but I honestly don't think he even cares. He was just off-handily pointing it out to you in a nicer way than I did.

Weird. I didn't say "masturbation" or "abortion" there.... How can I compare two things when I don't mention either of them?

[Woodruff]

Interesting that you take exception with my opinion , despite it not being a stand alone statement but simply a rebuttal of Tzors earlier outlandish claim. Are opinions only to be questioned when they clash with your particular bias ?

Do you often question opinions you agree with?

I try to.

Really? Is that why you are usually following the likes of nightstrike, phatscotty, & johnblue questioning their statements?

Did I say I ONLY try to question opinions I agree with?

Perhaps you've not seen me question pimpdave, PLAYER or Juan_Bottom, three individuals with whom I tend to agree on a great many things?

Questioning what they say doesn't mean I'm not going to ultimately agree with them. It means that I consider what they're saying and ask questions about it regarding parts that I may or may not necessarily agree with.

I can't recall a post (let alone multiple) where you have questioned any of those three though I will admit I am not as much of an off topic person as many of the rest of you. I'd say 75% of your posts that I have seen are in response to the three individuals I mentioned.

Hell, pimpdave and I essentially got each other banned at one point from our...uh...entirely non-inflammatory discussions. I've certainly gotten on Juan due to his increasing pimpdavousity, though he's probably the least of the three. And I'm not sure how you've missed PLAYER and I's discussions.

Now, that doesn't mean that a majority of my posts aren't in response to Night Strike, Phatscotty and john9blue (actually, I would say just the first two as the majority). They probably are. That's because they tend to be the most hypocritical on the site (Phatscotty) and the individual I disagree with the most on a personal level (Night Strike), in my view (obviously, that's just my opinion). I do have some back-and-forth with john, but I don't think it's that often really.

[patrickaa317]

Do you often question opinions you agree with?

I try to.

Really? Is that why you are usually following the likes of nightstrike, phatscotty, & johnblue questioning their statements?

Did I say I ONLY try to question opinions I agree with?

Perhaps you've not seen me question pimpdave, PLAYER or Juan_Bottom, three individuals with whom I tend to agree on a great many things?

Questioning what they say doesn't mean I'm not going to ultimately agree with them. It means that I consider what they're saying and ask questions about it regarding parts that I may or may not necessarily agree with.

I can't recall a post (let alone multiple) where you have questioned any of those three though I will admit I am not as much of an off topic person as many of the rest of you. I'd say 75% of your posts that I have seen are in response to the three individuals I mentioned.

Hell, pimpdave and I essentially got each other banned at one point from our...uh...entirely non-inflammatory discussions. I've certainly gotten on Juan due to his increasing pimpdavousity, though he's probably the least of the three. And I'm not sure how you've missed PLAYER and I's discussions.

Now, that doesn't mean that a majority of my posts aren't in response to Night Strike, Phatscotty and john9blue (actually, I would say just the first two as the majority). They probably are. That's because they tend to be the most hypocritical on the site (Phatscotty) and the individual I disagree with the most on a personal level (Night Strike), in my view (obviously, that's just my opinion). I do have some back-and-forth with john, but I don't think it's that often really.

Fair enough. I've seen you respond to them but never questioning something that you agreed with in their comments, it always seemed as though you were questioning something you didn't agree with, not something you agreed with.

[Woodruff]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/02/r-i-p-mitt-romney.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon