View Single Post
Old 04-13-2009, 08:02 PM   #82
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Your argument seems to stem from the concept of "potential life". All of these things (and more) are "potential life". If you would like to argue from a position of actual living things, that's fine (actually it's my preference), however blastocysts are not included. The good news is that this means we can both move on.
There is cellular function isn't there, the cells take in nutrients and expell waste, they grow and divide, that sounds like life to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
"Can" is what I've been discussing for the last several posts. You seem to want to have it both ways.
Actually I don't, that's why I think the Catholics are correct on this topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Really? Then help me understand why that whole "gestation" thing seems important?
No, it's more of I don't really care, in my views life begins at conception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Source please?
I posted it months ago in Kavar's Corner, I'm not going to waste my time looking for it again, because you said that someone that testified under oath, a transcript from the Illinois State Senate, etc. weren't valid sources so quite frankly I'm not going to waste my time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
There isn't any "moral calamity" now. There's a religious values calamity, but I have yet to be presented with a genuine moral argument re: any of these topics. As always, you're welcome to enlighten me, however I suspect that we will continue to see the arguments from dogma that I predicted several posts ago.
No, there is a moral calamity, where the problem is the fact that some people think you can compromise what you know to be right and wrong is for conveinence. That's what's wrong.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,