quote:

---

Originally posted by trogdor

As I understand it, Bill the whole situation with the mother and the tick and all the crap that fallowed was based on a argument of reducto ad absurdum. that means that the entire situation is sapposed to be crazy. Dave was pointing out what the logical consiquences of your thoughts were. and they were insane. no one would save a tick. therefore your thoughts were insane as well.(not to call you insane)

But hey, I could be wrong? And I'm an abomanation against god, so you don't need to listen to me.

---

quote:

---

no one would save a tick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

(bill) I still can not find that quote. I would say while the conception mechanism is not "natural", the fact that male sperm and female egg come togather still make it a "natural" human being that is worth every bit as much as a human who went through "natural" conception.

---

Why does that not surprise me. Yet you use the same "unnatural" argument to devine intent when talking about homosexuality. Holy double standard, Batman!

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because I felt Dude had degenerated from offering any refuting evidence and going strictly for the insult. I felt that it was taking away from his effectiveness in writing.

---

(bill) Of course all bets are off when your the one insulting people.

---

As I actually attempted to refute your position, you are comparing apples and oranges. Need more nails for your cross, Bill?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

quote:

---

With no God then all morals and laws are completely arbitrary, subjective and will be nothing more then each individuals opinion.

---

Incorrect.

1) Individual humans live in social groups and form a Social Contract (the US was founded in part based on this philosophy). They formed these groups for several reasons, mainly because there is safety in numbers. In order to live in groups together, the indiviuals have to agree to a standard of rules. This provides harmony, and allows the group to prosper. Those who break said rules are excluded from the group. This is morality. This is also not a human-only characteristic.

For example, the seemingly universal moral of "no murder" makes complete sense. If a group existed that actually condonded the murder of other members of the group, how long do you think that group would last? (and I'm not referencing abortion here). Of course, groups tend to allow murder of other competeting groups for various reasons. Murder of someone in the group is illegal, but if you are at war with another group and murder one of their members, then that is considered justified.

2) Even with a god, morals and laws are still open for interpretation and are arbitrary, since each group's concept of god is different, and each group's (and indviduals's for that matter) interpretation of how their god wants them to live varies. One only has to look at any major religion's various sects to see how interpretation is not standard.

---

quote:

---

Incorrect.

1) Individual humans live in social groups and form a Social Contract <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract> (the US was founded in part based on this philosophy). They formed these groups for several reasons, mainly because there is safety in numbers. In order to live in groups together, the indiviuals have to agree to a standard of rules. This provides harmony, and allows the group to prosper. Those who break said rules are excluded from the group. This is morality. This is also not a human-only characteristic.

---

quote:

---

For example, the seemingly universal moral of "no murder" makes complete sense. If a group existed that actually condonded the murder of other members of the group, how long do you think that group would last? (and I'm not referencing abortion here).

---

quote:

---

2) Even with a god, morals and laws are still open for interpretation and are arbitrary, since each group's concept of god is different, and each group's (and indviduals's for that matter) interpretation of how their god wants them to live varies. One only has to look at any major religion's various sects to see how interpretation is not standard.

---

quote:

---

Whiptails feed on a variety of terrestrial invertebrates and occasionally on smaller lizards. Most species reproduce sexually and lay 1 or more clutches of 1 to 6 eggs in late spring or early summer. However, in Arizona approximately 60 percent of whiptail species are parthenogenetic, meaning that they reproduce asexually. These species, such as the Sonoran spotted whiptail (C. sonorae), consist entirely of genetically identical females that lay unfertilized eggs, creating a population of clones. Oddly enough, many of the behaviors exhibited by sexually reproducing species are expressed by these parthenogenetic lizards. Females will engage in pseudocopulation and mount and bite other females. Apparently this triggers hormonal changes necessary for ovulation and egg laying. Eggs typically take 60 to 75 days to hatch regardless of reproductive style.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

sorry 50/50 for god/no god

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

(bill) I still can not find that quote. I would say while the conception mechanism is not "natural", the fact that male sperm and female egg come togather still make it a "natural" human being that is worth every bit as much as a human who went through "natural" conception.

---

Why does that not surprise me. Yet you use the same "unnatural" argument to devine intent when talking about homosexuality. Holy double standard, Batman!

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because I felt Dude had degenerated from offering any refuting evidence and going strictly for the insult. I felt that it was taking away from his effectiveness in writing.

---

(bill) Of course all bets are off when your the one insulting people.

---

As I actually attempted to refute your position, you are comparing apples and oranges. Need more nails for your cross, Bill?

---

Oh stop being obtuse. Now your comparing apples and twinkies. Oh, and dude sure thought he was refuting, just like you do, when he made the insult. Stop trying to hijack the topic anyway. When I first started posting here I was chided for this several times. The topic is banning abortions in SD. If you want to hash out the gay marriage thing again bring that thread back out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

I would ask Dave this first before you just assume anything. All though it is probably to late to ask him since you already made an assumption so Dave will just dismis you as rude or unchristian and now no one will ever know if Dave would save the tick of not? Great job trogdor! Now we just have another unknown about Dave that will never get answered because your unchristian attitude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) So who decides what is moral and what immoral, lawful and unlawful? Would not rape, in the eyes of NS, benefit the society as survival is the first instinct ingraved by NS, and rape can produce offspring.

---

quote:

---

(bill) But if there was a God who did create the universe then he would be the law giver as who could out trump the creator of the universe, correct?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

I would ask Dave this first before you just assume anything. All though it is probably to late to ask him since you already made an assumption so Dave will just dismis you as rude or unchristian and now no one will ever know if Dave would save the tick of not? Great job trogdor! Now we just have another unknown about Dave that will never get answered because your unchristian attitude.

---

No, trogdor got my position absolutely correct.

(Except for that small Hindu sect which would, indeed, save a tick.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

Your personal position on the matter should make just as much difference to the final conclusion as mine, none....

---

quote:

---

However this just a forum where ideas are discussed. It makes it much more interesting when you share a little on what you think (for the sake of keeping the forum interesting) then just sitting back and refusing to answer where you fall on the very subject being discussed for the past 10 pages.

---

quote:

---

Liar

---

quote:

---

But yet you were the one who called the human offspring a parasite because it only had 50% of moms DNA and that we should value a tick with respect as long lost relative because we may share a miniscule amount of DNA. You proudly brought this all up yourself. Yet when I ask you a follow up you refuse to address your own self-served subject.

---

quote:

---

* (bill) So a human parasite in the mothers whom is to be impaled to death for the crime of being conceived against her/his will, while a tick parasite is to be cared for with respect and sustained as a distant relative and one who man shares his DNA with even if a remote small % of DNA at that?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

That has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of fertilized human ova do not become live human beings walking the planet.

---

That has nothing to do with the point. You said I have nothing to indicate the results of NS, or the intent of the deity were for the women (host) to carry the baby (parasite) as the only intended mechanisms for procreation from NS or deity?

---

quote:

---

I simply reminded you that 99.99999% of all humans on the earth are here as result of said mechanism.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

*(bill) So what percent of mums DNA does the baby have to have before you no longer consider it a parasite, Dave?

I never said that I considered a zygote to be a parasite.

---

I never said you did. You said (whatever you want to call it) living in the mothers whom was a parasite and then you said the (insert your term of the day here) had only 50% of it's mom DNA. Weather you said it directly of implied it who cares? You said it...

---

quote:

---

And just as I stated and documented in the last post, you will play all kinds of games and just dismiss questions based off of one question you claim everyone has failed to answer for you.

---

quote:

---

Besides I did not ask this question in light of your question. I based this question off your statment that the baby was a parasite to the mother (host) and it only had 50% of moms DNA.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Since I never said that because natural selection gave us the capability to abort we should use it, the question is irrelevant.

---

Smoke and mirrors. You did say that since we can perform

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

(bill) I agree, just as a monkey can not turn into a man, nor do wolves turn into whales, nor do reptiles beget birds

---

quote:

---

Blogger's how-to for abortions stirs debate
By DRU SEFTON

A feminist blogger has posted explicit directions online for a surgical abortion, in reaction to the new South Dakota law all but banning the procedure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

Your personal position on the matter should make just as much difference to the final conclusion as mine, none....

---

Well, the issue I was discussing was actually whether or not the "personal responsibility" argument is a good one to make in the face of unequal values placed upon life in general. Since you seemed to be defending it as valid, then your opinion on why it's valid is definitely relevant, and that's what I was trying to get at before you started these word games.

quote:

---

However this just a forum where ideas are discussed. It makes it much more interesting when you share a little on what you think (for the sake of keeping the forum interesting) then just sitting back and refusing to answer where you fall on the very subject being discussed for the past 10 pages.

---

I'm not actually interested in my ideas of why you would defend a particular anti-abortion argument, I want to hear your ideas on that particular anti-abortion argument. The way I went about it obviously did not provide the response I would have liked, but had you answered the question, I would indeed, have shared my opinions with you willingly.

quote:

---

Liar

---

Prove it.

quote:

---

But yet you were the one who called the human offspring a parasite because it only had 50% of moms DNA and that we should value a tick with respect as long lost relative because we may share a miniscule amount of DNA. You proudly brought this all up yourself. Yet when I ask you a follow up you refuse to address your own self-served subject.

---

No, I never once called a human foetus a parasite because it had only 50% of its mother's DNA. Instead, I was replying to your assertion that it's not an "intruder" because it came from the mother. Hell, a tumor has 100% of its "owner's" DNA, and can even grow hair, teeth and bone, but it's certainly something to get rid of rather than cultivate. And so the answer to this question:

quote:

---

* (bill) So a human parasite in the mothers whom is to be impaled to death for the crime of being conceived against her/his will, while a tick parasite is to be cared for with respect and sustained as a distant relative and one who man shares his DNA with even if a remote small % of DNA at that?

---

is "I never made such ridiculous remarks, I don't know where you got the impression that I did," which I shortened to nothing since arguing about it would serve no purpose.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of fertilized human ova do not become live human beings walking the planet.

---

That has nothing to do with the point. You said I have nothing to indicate the results of NS, or the intent of the deity were for the women (host) to carry the baby (parasite) as the only intended mechanisms for procreation from NS or deity?

---

I said nothing of the sort.

quote:

---

I simply reminded you that 99.99999% of all humans on the earth are here as result of said mechanism.

---

Which is still irrelevant to the point.

quote:

---

quote:

---

*(bill) So what percent of mums DNA does the baby have to have before you no longer consider it a parasite, Dave?

I never said that I considered a zygote to be a parasite.

---

I never said you did. You said (whatever you want to call it) living in the mothers whom was a parasite and then you said the (insert your term of the day here) had only 50% of it's mom DNA. Weather you said it directly of implied it who cares? You said it...

---

No, I didn't say that nor implied that I believed it. I never once applied the term "parasite" to a foetus or a zygote, and never implied it as a position I hold. You're getting me mixed up in your head with some other poster here. The first stepping-stone in my argument is that nobody would ever take "personal responsibility" for a parasite (like a tapeworm) even if it were their own actions which led to the infestation. I chose to illustrate that point by examining the opposing condition. You misunderstood, and continue to compound the problem by demanding that I've argued for these ludicrous points-of-view.

quote:

---

And just as I stated and documented in the last post, you will play all kinds of games and just dismiss questions based off of one question you claim everyone has failed to answer for you.

---

No, Bill, my problem is with you, Bill, and nobody else. Even verso, another abortion opponent, answered my question in good faith (better than even I asked for), and in return I spoke at length about some of the thinking that I've been doing. And now I feel bad because I forgot to ask Robb, though he's made himself fairly scarce recently - I like Robb, he's a nice guy who, most of the time, really tries to understand the people who don't share his opinions.

quote:

---

Besides I did not ask this question in light of your question. I based this question off your statment that the baby was a parasite to the mother (host) and it only had 50% of moms DNA.

---

Which was after I asked you why you value human life differently than all other life.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Since I never said that because natural selection gave us the capability to abort we should use