The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 8128

TigerTime wrote:

... No. No, that's stupid. "Rights" do not cross over into physics. They are not "natural laws" like thermodynamics. They are constructs of the human mind, no matter how you package them.



No, 'natural law' is not a human construct. 'Positive law' is a human construct.


If your rights come from law, they are imaginary. Mere constructs of the population's aggregate desires.


No, that's positive law not natural law.


If your rights come from your own thoughts,


See above.


then they are also imaginary, they just might not hold any water when dealing with other people.

You have the right to defend yourself both because you want this right and because others want this right for you.



Defending oneself trumps positive law. It's part of the 'state of nature' that Hobbes described. Even animals are subject to natural law.


That doesn't mean you have this right by necessity.


Yes it does.


If society's values changed so that the right to protect yourself was no longer viewed as a right, do you still have that right? Says you, perhaps, but what if they put you in a straight jacket and lock you away? You may still feel you have this right, but as far as objective reality is concerned (let's pretend it can be "concerned") you don't. Keep in mind, the ability to do something is not the same as a "right" and vice versa.

Right's are not objective facts. Just because they are the way they are now doesn't mean they must be that way by necessity. Do you get what I'm saying? You can't use the believes of others as justification for your own beliefs. Not unless those beliefs are, in turn, actually rooted in reality.

And no, really wanting it to be rooted in reality doesn't root it in reality.


You aren't distinguishing between natural law and positive law. Also, the distinction between 'rights' and 'freedoms' in the state of nature is largely a matter of semantics. When the social contract is entered into certain natural rights - or freedoms - are given up in exchange. These are the rights that I contend exist in the state of nature.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16202

Then Tigger needs to be the first courageous soul to declare that he hates this nation as founded which was on the "self evident" truth that all mean are CREATED equal and that their rights are endowed upon them by that creator. Come on. Don't gimme some pathetic crap about how that is a product of it's times. It IS the very foundation all that this country was founded to be.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

TigerTime
Level

Join date: May 2011
Posts: 1369

SexMachine wrote:
You aren't distinguishing between natural law and positive law. Also, the distinction between 'rights' and 'freedoms' in the state of nature is largely a matter of semantics. When the social contract is entered into certain natural rights - or freedoms - are given up in exchange. These are the rights that I contend exist in the state of nature.


That's because the distinction is bunk. Natural law is not an objective truth. The only thing stopping or allowing you to do something is your ability to do that thing. Every other factor only exists in the mind. This includes natural law. If natural law is objective, then why are there so many contradictory theories? If natural law is objective, then all this would be none-sense. It would simply be understood -- like gravity. Sure, scientists argue about exactly what drives gravity, but they all agree on exactly what gravity does. Not true with Natural law and this is because it is a man-made idea. It has no set standard because it is simply a description of reality and since you can't describe all of reality while being consistent, you end up with many inconsistent theories on natural law.

Basically, they all add up to the is-ought problem.

Besides, since the only objective constraint to one's actions is ability, any natural right must derive itself from ability if it is to be objective. Therefore, having the ability to have an abortion gives one the right to have an abortion, thus justifying abortion with natural law.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

TigerTime
Level

Join date: May 2011
Posts: 1369

Tiribulus wrote:
Then Tigger needs to be the first courageous soul to declare that he hates this nation as founded which was on the "self evident" truth that all mean are CREATED equal and that their rights are endowed upon them by that creator. Come on. Don't gimme some pathetic crap about how that is a product of it's times. It IS the very foundation all that this country was founded to be.


First, you all realize my name only has one "g", right? Just thought I'd clarify that.

Second, if "rights" are God given, then why is there such disparity amongst the "rights" of different nations, even amongst the Christian nations? Either God himself has changed his mind on "rights" a lot (and didn't bother correcting anyone) or these "rights" are merely what men have come up with and want them to be.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 8128

TigerTime wrote:

That's because the distinction is bunk. Natural law is not an objective truth. The only thing stopping or allowing you to do something is your ability to do that thing.



Well that's part of natural law. Might is right. You have the right to take things from someone less strong than you because you are fighting for your own survival in a place where life is 'nasty, brutish and short.'


Every other factor only exists in the mind. This includes natural law. If natural law is objective, then why are there so many contradictory theories? If natural law is objective, then all this would be none-sense. It would simply be understood -- like gravity. Sure, scientists argue about exactly what drives gravity, but they all agree on exactly what gravity does. Not true with Natural law and this is because it is a man-made idea. It has no set standard because it is simply a description of reality and since you can't describe all of reality while being consistent, you end up with many inconsistent theories on natural law.

Basically, they all add up to the is-ought problem.

Besides, since the only objective constraint to one's actions is ability, any natural right must derive itself from ability if it is to be objective. Therefore, having the ability to have an abortion gives one the right to have an abortion, thus justifying abortion with natural law.


Abortion? That would come under divine law which we have yet to mention. However this is what Hobbes said about the state of nature:

'...during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man' (Leviathan, ch. XIII). In this state any person has a natural right to the liberty to do anything he wills to preserve his own life, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"'

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

TigerTime
Level

Join date: May 2011
Posts: 1369

SexMachine wrote:
TigerTime wrote:

That's because the distinction is bunk. Natural law is not an objective truth. The only thing stopping or allowing you to do something is your ability to do that thing.



Well that's part of natural law. Might is right. You have the right to take things from someone less strong than you because you are fighting for your own survival in a place where life is 'nasty, brutish and short.'


Every other factor only exists in the mind. This includes natural law. If natural law is objective, then why are there so many contradictory theories? If natural law is objective, then all this would be none-sense. It would simply be understood -- like gravity. Sure, scientists argue about exactly what drives gravity, but they all agree on exactly what gravity does. Not true with Natural law and this is because it is a man-made idea. It has no set standard because it is simply a description of reality and since you can't describe all of reality while being consistent, you end up with many inconsistent theories on natural law.

Basically, they all add up to the is-ought problem.

Besides, since the only objective constraint to one's actions is ability, any natural right must derive itself from ability if it is to be objective. Therefore, having the ability to have an abortion gives one the right to have an abortion, thus justifying abortion with natural law.


Abortion? That would come under divine law which we have yet to mention. However this is what Hobbes said about the state of nature:

'...during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man' (Leviathan, ch. XIII). In this state any person has a natural right to the liberty to do anything he wills to preserve his own life, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"'


... So you recognize that "natural law" is another way of saying "ability". Well then, you've interjected into our debate knowing that you're talking about something different than are we. And if you consciously recognized that we are talking about positive law, then exactly how is it a fair criticism to point towards natural law? Especially considering I would have no way of knowing "your" natural law unless you already explained it to me.

You've made "rights" objective, only because you've defined objective things as "rights" and not because "rights" are actually objective. You've merely blended the definition of "right" and "ability". Not that there's a problem in it, it just isn't a valid counter argument to what I was saying to Kneedragger -- especially considering the "might is right" mentality justifies the pro-choice position, the very thing he is arguing against.

And if abortion is covered is divine law and NOT natural law, then natural law is entirely irrelevant to this debate.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 8128

TigerTime wrote:

... So you recognize that "natural law" is another way of saying "ability".



Not really. It's not the ability that affords the right but the environment and circumstance.


Well then, you've interjected into our debate knowing that you're talking about something different than are we. And if you consciously recognized that we are talking about positive law, then exactly how is it a fair criticism to point towards natural law? Especially considering I would have no way of knowing "your" natural law unless you already explained it to me.



My apologies. I saw your statement claiming all rights are man-made constructs and only exist in mans' mind. I don't agree with that. And I provided a link on the Hobbesian/Lockean 'natural law' to explain what I meant.


You've made "rights" objective, only because you've defined objective things as "rights" and not because "rights" are actually objective.


I guess that depends on what you mean by 'rights.'


You've merely blended the definition of "right" and "ability".


Not so. I used the term rights in the same sense as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. If there is a blending it would be of the concept of 'rights' and 'freedom.'


Not that there's a problem in it, it just isn't a valid counter argument to what I was saying to Kneedragger -- especially considering the "might is right" mentality justifies the pro-choice position, the very thing he is arguing against.


We don't live in a state of nature. It's an analysis of the nature of mankind and society
not a blueprint. Hobbes and Locke were both Christians - especially Hobbes.


And if abortion is covered is divine law and NOT natural law, then natural law is entirely irrelevant to this debate.



My apologies. I was commenting on your statement that all rights are man-made constructs. However what you say(above about divine and natural law being irrelevant) may or may not be correct. Hugo Grotius's view was that the two are completely unrelated:

About natural law itself, he wrote that "even the will of an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate" natural law, which "would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs."

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16202

TigerTime wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Then Tigger needs to be the first courageous soul to declare that he hates this nation as founded which was on the "self evident" truth that all mean are CREATED equal and that their rights are endowed upon them by that creator. Come on. Don't gimme some pathetic crap about how that is a product of it's times. It IS the very foundation all that this country was founded to be.


First, you all realize my name only has one "g", right? Just thought I'd clarify that.

Second, if "rights" are God given, then why is there such disparity amongst the "rights" of different nations, even amongst the Christian nations? Either God himself has changed his mind on "rights" a lot (and didn't bother correcting anyone) or these "rights" are merely what men have come up with and want them to be.
Or different nations are more or less faithful in their aligning themselves with the rights that our founders declared to be self evident. You're smarter than this dude. That was a pitiful freshman fallacy. It's like saying "if murder is illegal then why do people keep killing each other huh? So there."

No answer as usual. This nation was declared outta the gate to be built on God given rights and "divine providence". That's why we went from 13 colonies who defeated the greatest military power on earth at the time to... well... the greatest military power in the whole of human history ourselves. The most prosperous, successful, progressive, feared and envied people ever to live on this planet. That IS (or was) the United States of America. We abandoned that in the 1960's and instead decided we would become an atheistic national whorehouse and now were dying... fast. People like you will not rest until the whole country looks like Detroit and we're well on our way.

Why won't any of you God hating pagans simply say you do not like this nation as founded? I can post the next 10 pages of documentation that we were launched on crystal clear Christian principles and that the populous in the 18th century was overwhelmingly descended ideologically from the protestant reformation. I would respect you more. Just say you hate that. It's obvious you do anyway.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

niksamaras
Level

Join date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1767

Tiribulus wrote:
TigerTime wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Then Tigger needs to be the first courageous soul to declare that he hates this nation as founded which was on the "self evident" truth that all mean are CREATED equal and that their rights are endowed upon them by that creator. Come on. Don't gimme some pathetic crap about how that is a product of it's times. It IS the very foundation all that this country was founded to be.


First, you all realize my name only has one "g", right? Just thought I'd clarify that.

Second, if "rights" are God given, then why is there such disparity amongst the "rights" of different nations, even amongst the Christian nations? Either God himself has changed his mind on "rights" a lot (and didn't bother correcting anyone) or these "rights" are merely what men have come up with and want them to be.
Or different nations are more or less faithful in their aligning themselves with the rights that our founders declared to be self evident. You're smarter than this dude. That was a pitiful freshman fallacy. It's like saying "if murder is illegal then why do people keep killing each other huh? So there."

No answer as usual. This nation was declared outta the gate to be built on God given rights and "divine providence". That's why we went from 13 colonies who defeated the greatest military power on earth at the time to... well... the greatest military power in the whole of human history ourselves. The most prosperous, successful, progressive, feared and envied people ever to live on this planet. That IS (or was) the United States of America. We abandoned that in the 1960's and instead decided we would become an atheistic national whorehouse and now were dying... fast. People like you will not rest until the whole country looks like Detroit and we're well on our way.

Why won't any of you God hating pagans simply say you do not like this nation as founded? I can post the next 10 pages of documentation that we were launched on crystal clear Christian principles and that the populous in the 18th century was overwhelmingly descended ideologically from the protestant reformation. I would respect you more. Just say you hate that. It's obvious you do anyway.



I haven't read anything for the last 10 pages, but I can say that Christians made arguably the worst war ever, the Crusades. So yeah, Christians do suck. Also, Muslims suck. Only Chine and Japan has not done a war based on religion, as far as I know. I gues believing in dragons and stuff is anti-war or something. Random post, but religions generally suck.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16202

The crusades were conducted by the Roman Catholic church, not Christians. I join you in condemning both.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

TigerTime
Level

Join date: May 2011
Posts: 1369

SexMachine wrote:
Not really. It's not the ability that affords the right but the environment and circumstance.


Can you give an example of such a distinction?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

TigerTime
Level

Join date: May 2011
Posts: 1369

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Or different nations are more or less faithful in their aligning themselves with the rights that our founders declared to be self evident. You're smarter than this dude. That was a pitiful freshman fallacy. It's like saying "if murder is illegal then why do people keep killing each other huh? So there."

^ This right here; If our rights are based on what the founding fathers thought, then the rights you currently exercise are a product of man's mind, not God given.

I don't like this nation as founded. There. I have no problem in saying it.

And, "no answer"? I'm pretty sure you didn't ask me any questions.

Furthermore, if America's right's are only based on "divine rights" then they are NOT divine rights, at least in totality. Do you really want to live in a nation ruled by the edicts God laid out in the bible?

One last thing, you are aware that Detroit is mostly Catholic, right? Though, you're not a big fan of Catholics so this probably doesn't bother you anyway. =/

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

kneedragger79
Level 2

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2183

"Miracle of Life"

http:// www. youtube.com/watch?v=APkV40vUhWs

This link is only licensed to be watched on youtube (I wouldn't want T-Nation to have any trouble), so I added a space to the web address. To watch the link simply delete the space ; )

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

kneedragger79
Level 2

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2183

Should Men Be Silent in the Fight for Life?

By Laura Peredo, Published February 25th, 2012

'I often hear pro-choicers talk about this topic. I recently found this post, and knew it was a wonderful opportunity to write about men and abortion.

Pro-choicers often say that men shouldn't have input in abortion decisions because it's solely a woman's issue. The author of that post even went on to say she wanted to "silence all the male voices in the abortion discussion." Pro-choicers say the decision should be left up to the woman it's her body after all, right? They say that most pro-lifers are men who are trying to control women's bodies. Apparently, since men can't give birth to babies, they don't have any business in what happens to their own children. I beg to differ. Men have every right in the world to have a say in what happens to their children.

The author of that post (named "Not Guilty") goes on to say:

"The main anti-choice voices for the U.S. are also all men. In fact, the majority of persons in government who are anti-choice, are men."

Now I'm not sure who she's naming as the "main voices" in the pro-life movement, but I can name quite a few pro-life women who are integral to our success, and have made a huge impact. Take Live Action's Lila Rose for example, and Abby Johnson. They have made huge impacts in the pro-life movement, and are both women. There are so many other men AND women who are indispensable leaders in this movement as well. It's true that most pro-life people in government positions are men, but that's because the majority of people in government positions are men anyway, regardless of their stance on life.

"And none of them can get pregnant. The people who are making decisions that affect the lives of women, CAN'T EVEN GET PREGNANT!"

Using this logic, if I'm never going to have cancer, I shouldn't do anything about treating cancer. Since I'm not a dog, I should not have any say about what happens to my pet. If I lived in a place where there were slaves, but I was not one, I should not do anything for them since I would never be one. That's a bunch of baloney. Yes, that yucky stuff packed with preservatives that tastes like a giant slice of hot dog. Baloney. Just because I am not something does not mean I can't have a say in what happens to people who are that something.

"I truly believe that if men were no longer allowed to speak on the topic of abortion, every country would be pro-choice."

This author needs to do a little more research before making these claims, because women are more pro-life than men at this point. According to a recent Gallup poll, 5% more women than men said that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. If you look at some of the largest pro-life Facebook pages, you see that the majority of the fans are female. Take Live Action for example, 78% of their over 300,000 Facebook fans are female. Wow!

And finally our "Not Guilty" friend says:

"It is that rage, that sense of complete and utter anger at a man telling me what I can and cannot do with my body that causes me to write that sentence, that causes me to want to silence all the male voices in the abortion discussion."

And this brings me to my final point: You're right that men cannot legally force you to do what they want to your body. BUT fathers should have a right to have a say in what happens to their children.

Ingrained in every true man is the desire to protect his woman and children. Dads have gone off to wars for ages to protect what they love. They work full time to provide food for our tables. Our society has changed quite a bit, but remember hearing stories about knights in shining armor slaying dragons and saving damsels in distress? I'm not saying that us ladies are damsels in distress, but I'm saying that's how guys are made. They're made to fight for and to be protectors of what they love. How wrong it would be for us to rob them of their voices as they join us in this fight for life.'

Above article taken from following link - http://liveaction.org/...fight-for-life/

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

kneedragger79
Level 2

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2183

End of Embryonic Period

http://www.ehd.org/....php?mov_id=222

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

kneedragger79
Level 2

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2183

This topic is often used to justify killing a child in their first home.


Michelle Duggar: "We're not anywhere near being overpopulated"

VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, March 29, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) " TLC reality star Michelle Duggar has often been excoriated by environmentalist activists for having 19 children and contributing to what they say is the world's 'overpopulation' problem. But the fecund mother and star of the reality show 19 Kids and Counting, told CBN News recently that she believes overpopulation "is a lie."

The journalist for the Christian news network read an e-mail from a "friend," which read:

I've always wanted to ask the Duggars what kind of environmental impact this super-large family is having on the world. The question of overpopulation might be a controversial subject, but there are a lot of people out there who find the amount of children they have to be too many, and more than the average of two kids per family.

"Oh wow," Duggar responded. "The idea of overpopulation is not accurate because, really, the entire population of the world, if they were stood shoulder to shoulder, could fit in the city limits of Jacksonville," she continued. "We're not anywhere near being overpopulated."

Duggar said that despite her family's unusual size, they minimize their environmental impact by buying used and second-hand items headed for the scrap heap.

But ultimately, an abundance of babies causes her little concern. "I agree with Mother Teresa when she said, 'To say that there are too many children is like saying there are too many flowers.'"

Duggar said she prays for and raises her children to be a force for good in society. "They're going to go out into the world and they're going to be the ones making a difference," she said. "And they're probably going to be the ones that are going to be paying for the Social Security and helping others in the long run."

Ironically, experts say that underpopulation may be a more immediate threat to many nations, especially in Europe and the developed West. "We've had other countries coming to our doorstep asking us to please let their people know that they need to have more children, because their death rates are outnumbering their births rates, and they're in crisis," Duggar told CBN. "They don't have people of marrying age for their youth now."

The United Nations Population Fund has estimated Russia will lose ten percent of its already sagging population in the next 20 years.

Meanwhile the Chinese media have reported, due to sex-selective abortion, 20 million men will be unable to find wives by 2020.

"I think we're so deceived when we believe" in overpopulation, Duggar stated.

Despite a dearth of evidence, the impending threat of overpopulation continues to exercise a hold over high-ranking officials in the United States and around the world. A new report states, despite policies that forbid the promotion of abortion or sterilization, the European Union has illegally paid abortion providers $30 million in taxpayer funds. Many of these expenditures were done in the name of "development."

"If we look at economic development in so-called third-world countries, we see that very often the contrary is the case: a growing population leads to economic development. Development policies have to combat poverty, not the poor," Sophia Kuby, executive director of European Dignity Watch, told LifeSiteNews.com.

Kuby said the funding of abortion in the name of economic progress is inspired by "a Malthusian thinking that says: The world will face unbearable overpopulation and the highest priority 'a priority that even trumps the most fundamental right to life ' is to reduce population in developing countries."

The Obama administration's Science Czar, John Holdren, described himself as "firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp" in his 1977 book Ecoscience, which proposed limiting the world's population through drastic measures, including "compulsory abortion" for American women, if necessary.

Duggar told CBN instead of culling excess population, "we need to focus on loving people and trying to reach out and make a difference for good in our world."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/...-overpopulated1

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

kneedragger79
Level 2

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2183

photo - Mary Pine

DOJ drops Obama-ordered appeal against pro-life activist, will pay $120,000 legal expenses

by Jill Stanek

" I wrote last week that while President Obama's Department of Justice decided not to appeal a court decision rejecting its Freedom of Access to Clinics Act lawsuit against Colorado pro-life activist Kenneth Scott, it was doubling down and appealing another adverse court decision in its case against Mary Susan Pine (pictured right) in Florida.

Well, good news comes today from Pine's legal representation, Liberty Counsel, with very interesting tidbits, bolded:

The Department of Justice has dropped its appeal in Holder v. Pine against pro-life sidewalk counselor Mary "Susan" Pine, who is represented by Liberty Counsel. The DOJ has agreed to pay $120,000 for this improper lawsuit. The DOJ had unsuccessfully sought thousands of dollars in fines against Susan Pine, as well as a permanent injunction banning her from counseling women on the public sidewalk outside the Presidential Women's Center abortion clinic.

After 18 months of litigation, the DOJ's case was thrown out of federal court, and the department was chastised for filing a case with no evidence. Federal Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp stated that Holder's complete failure to present any evidence of wrongdoing, coupled with the DOJ;s cozy relationship with PWC and their joint failure to preserve video surveillance footage of the alleged "obstruction," caused the court to suspect a conspiracy at the highest level of the Obama Administration. "The Court is at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place," wrote Judge Ryskamp. "The Court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine's activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine's conduct."

After this ruling the DOJ appealed on the last day possible and gave indication that President Obama ordered the appeal.

Pine also wrote in an email that the DOJ dropped the charges against her with prejudice, as it did with Scott, it cannot regurgitate this case against her again.

The news for these two pro-life stalwarts is great, although six similar lawsuits remain live.

But, wow, what is it that makes Barack Obama so obsessed with abortion?

These attempts to shut down the pro-life movement serve as more reminders how much of the people's money and resources the Obama administration is willing to wantonly expend to make abortion as easily attainable as possible. "

http://www.lifesitenews.com/...l-pay-12000-leg

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

kneedragger79
Level 2

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2183

NOVA - Life's Greatest Miracle
Trace human development from embryo to newborn through stunning microimagery.

http://video.pbs.org/...ideo/1841157252

Amazing video that explains how the embryo starts its existence and is born into our world.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

kneedragger79
Level 2

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2183

THE 2012 ELECTIONS:
Five Questions for Pro-Life Advocates

by Scott Klusendorf

http://www.equip.org/.../PDF/JAV346.pdf

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16202

kneedragger79 wrote:
NOVA - Life's Greatest Miracle
Trace human development from embryo to newborn through stunning microimagery.

http://video.pbs.org/...ideo/1841157252

Amazing video that explains how the embryo starts its existence and is born into our world.
Absolutely awesome. I started it and couldn't stop. The mind bending genius and wisdom of God.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

kneedragger79
Level 2

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2183

People were ignorant when they supported the killing of Jews in '39-'45 because "they weren't human." Pro-death people use the EXACT SAME logic to kill the unborn!

Science is proving just some of the miraculous properties that create life. Some pro-death people try to show me were the human life started in the uterine wall. When someone can't define something, they are therefore wrong. When they continue their stance with no grounding, they are in the realm of a complete and utter cretin.

Tiribulus wrote: Absolutely awesome. I started it and couldn't stop. The mind bending genius and wisdom of God.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16202

TigerTime wrote:<<< I don't like this nation as founded. There. I have no problem in saying it. >>>
I just now saw this months later. TigerTime has just gone up about 12 notches on my respectometer. I couldn't mean anything more

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cortes
Level 4

Join date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7145

Tiribulus wrote:
TigerTime wrote:<<< I don't like this nation as founded. There. I have no problem in saying it. >>>
I just now saw this months later. TigerTime has just gone up about 12 notches on my respectometer. I couldn't mean anything more


I just saw it earlier today as well.

I'd be interested in hearing him explain this a bit.

Also, TT, are you an American, yourself? I've never seen you say and I get a vague (but not complete) impression that you are not.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16202

Oh I wish we could get multitudes more to be this honest. "I love my country". The United States IS NOT a piece of real estate in North America. It is a set of principles from which she was squarely launched. The ideals of her founding roots which are undeniably Christian in nature. Except for a flag, this socialistic heathen whorehouse and death trap bears almost no resemblance to the United States anymore.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

kneedragger79
Level 2

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2183

TT lives in Canada if I remember something he told me once. However tigger, please don't get too upset if I am wrong. Simply posting your location below your AVI, as to where you live leaves no confusion ; )

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
Topic is Locked
This thread has reached its maximum number of replies. Click HERE to start a new topic.