Religion Discussion

[Zelknolf]

So, do any of you christian republicans support ID (intelligent design) teaching in schools (even science class next to evolution) ?

I'm teaching science these days and next week I start my unit on evolution and Darwin. I'm a christian but not a republican necessarily. I don't really have any plans to teach on intelligent design, but if a student brings it up we will discuss it at least. I don't see any problems with discussing topics that touch on religious beliefs. Whether it's how things were created, bio-ethics, or our responsibilities to the environment, etc. they seem to crop up pretty regularly. Sorry I didn't bother to read the whole thread, just Zic's question in the first post. I thought I'd reply since I'm a (christian) state employee who will be getting paid to teach evolution for the next two weeks.

Shame. The real discussion died like a day after the OP; douchebaggery has heinously derailed the thread. I don't think Zic's reading it anymore.

Shame I missed it. Although I'm not sure why I bothered since I noticed it had hit 11 pages already... Ah well.

Well, most actual teachers I've spoken to who keep jobs in a public schools think as you do, for what it's worth. There's the occasional yahoo who's put in the 5-7 years (depending on the state) of work and is all but unfireable who decides that intelligent design must be taught as fact, but I've met all of two of those, one of whom ended up doin' something stupid enough to cost him his job, anyhow. Most teach what science has to say as fact and use the bringing up of less-established philosophies as teachable moments; a "Here's what it is and here are the groups that believe that, but the scientific community disagrees with them." sort of thing, with a smaller group that just says "That's really more a discussion for your literature classes."

'course, I don't speak for people who lose their jobs in those first two vulnerable years or for private schools. Those are a whole other game.

[White Warlock]

lol Veilan, loved that photo bit.

[Vaelahr]

A review of the articles/sites provided by Vaelahr --- ...........................................................

Wow Roy, you really are wound up over all this! Trying to type away those personal demons?

Why not focus that intense scrutiny on the horseshit quote you posted from Planned Parenthood?

...you never did answer my earlier questions about impregnation via rape or incest.

At the moment, the question's a diversion (as was your tedious article review). Hopefully, we'll get to it. Hang in there Roy, hang in there.

Modern medicine allows doctors to know whether a woman's life is in danger before a breech occurs.

Before a partial-birth abortion occurs?

{rolls eyes} No... before a 'breech' occurs. I don't suppose you know what a breech is, do you?

My my, you're tough as nails Roy. How unforgivable of me to have misunderstood your post. And your tone has been rather naughty with me lately, Roy. You test my kindness with this naughty tone of yours.....and I find this sorely vexing.

So....a "breech"? Is that part of a ship? No, it's a nut, right? A breechnut!

A woman's life is never in danger to where an abortion would save her life, particularly the monstrous procedure of a partial-birth abortion...

See, there you go doing exactly what the other exploitive misrepresenters do. You grab the arguments in opposition to breech abortions and shotgun it as if the experts had stated "all" abortion techniques, and thus abortion as a whole. Maybe if you took a few minutes to read and comprehend what i write, you would be able to realize what it is you're repeatedly doing here with your erroneous arguments.

No Roy, I'm telling you.....that a woman's life is never in danger to where aborting her baby would save her life. You do realize that, don't you, Roy?

Roy? *tap tap tap on Whitey's forehead with index finger* Roy?

And, as breech abortions are significantly more dangerous, a caesarian (or another type of abortion) can be performed.

You mean a hysterotomy abortion? The abortion type with the greatest risk of complications!

You're demonstrating your ignorance again. Either that or you're playing the drama card.

A hysterectomy is not a caesarean, although there is a form of caesarean called caesarean hysterectomy, which is a c-section followed by removal of the uterus. This is a drastic surgery combining a c-section abortion with a hysterectomy. It is rarely ever performed for anything other than uncontrolled uterine bleeding, or when the placenta is hopelessly attached to the uterus.

I didn't say hysterectomy, Roy. I said HYSTEROTOMY ABORTION....also known as a caesarian abortion. And it is the abortion type with the greatest risk of complications! Look it up, Roy. Try to keep up....please!

Anyway, moving past your drama games...

Drama games? Roy, you're the dramatic one. You link to an image collage of dead and wounded children on a politics thread. What a ghoul you are! You mentioned the death of your best friend's wife as well as the aborting of two of your children for so-called medical reasons. But the truth is, an abortion would not have saved her life as you so foolishly claimed. Abortion only kills, Roy. If abortion would have truly saved her life, then you would have told us the COD and we could have looked it up and been enlightened but nooooo, you'd rather try to use a couple of personal situations in hopes of gaining some kind of arguement leverage on a D&D message board. And you avoided telling us what "medical reasons" there were that required the abortion of your two kids. The reality is, there were none.....only reasons of convenience and selfishness. But chin up Roy! She had a Constitutional right to abort. It's all good!

Alright, look, i'm doing all the real work here. You're just dancing about acting like you know what you're talking about and instead repeatedly putting on a show.

But I do know what I'm talking about, Roy.

So what's next? Going to post about how you could beat me up with your karate skills?

Oh, and for Val, a molar pregnancy can include an embryo:

Partial Mole occurs when the mass contains both the abnormal cells and an embryo that has severe defects. In this case the fetus will be overcome by the growing abnormal mass rather quickly.
An extremely rare version of a partial mole is when twins are conceived but one embryo begins to develop normally while the other is a mole. In these cases, the healthy embryo will very quickly be consumed by the abnormal growth.

Well now that's a partial molar pregnancy. A partial mole 69-chromosomed embryo simply can't survive. The treatment isn't interrupting the continuum of human life (as abortion is), it's just sound medical practice. It's a rare form of miscarriage that requires special attention due to the risk of GTD.

With a twin molar pregnancy, the healthy embryo is not necessarily doomed and can be treated like a second patient.
An example

I've never mentioned the non-medical term of "soul". Such a word is worthless and inappropriate in this discussion.

Indeed.

I think in this uncertainty, the first order of the day for "pro-choicers" should be to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an embryo, at the stage they are suggesting abortion is still okay, is not a living being.

Define "being" in this instance. Merely being alive itsn't sufficient, as chiuckens are alive and we have no compunction about killing them for their delicious, made-of-meat bodies.

So, a feotus would, for this test, presumably have to demonstrate some level of ability way above and beyond that of an adult chicken. Something that can be measured.

What do you suggest?

I suggest any textbook on human embryology.

A human zygote begins at fertilization..... all of the inherited features of this new human are set instantly – gender, eye color, hair color, other physical features, and all genetic instructions for future development.

She can reproduce her own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function, unique and distinguishable totally from any other living organism. Completely human, able to develop only into a mature human. Complete in that nothing new will be added except growth and development of what is already there at fertilization.

The answer is there in the textbooks of Human Embryology, that "human life" begins at fertilization, or conception, which is the same as fertilization. It has always been there, at least for 100 years. Yet this simple fact, without referencing Human Embryology, has been parsed and corrupted into questioning whether life even exists at that time, and to redefining "conception" to mean "implantation," just to give two examples.

Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception). We exist as a continuum of human life, which begins at fertilization and continues until death, whenever that may be.

Every Human Embryology textbook, and every human embryologist, not only identifies the continuum of human life, but describes it in detail; which is to say: At any point in time, during the continuum of life, there exists a whole, integrated human being! This is because over time, from the one-celled embryo to a 100-year-old senior, all of the characteristics of life change, albeit at different rates at different times: size, form, content, function, appearance, etc. Actually, the terminology of Human Embryology is important only in the taxonomic sense. It enables human embryologists to talk to one another. This terminology does not compromise nor change the continuum of human life.

[Mulu]

I suggest neuropsychology, as being alive isn't sufficient. A person with a 90% dead brain but still breathing is "alive."

[White Warlock]

A review of the articles/sites provided by Vaelahr --- ...........................................................

Wow Roy, you really are wound up over all this! Trying to type away those personal demons?

I see. Maybe you forgot when you posted this: Vaelahr wrote, "You're internet savvy. Show me wrong. You can't. And you're unwilling to do honest homework on the subject."

You ask me to review them, you ask me to provide input, you ask me to research, and when i do... i'm "wound up over all of it." Do your own homework next time, juvenile troll.

...you never did answer my earlier questions about impregnation via rape or incest.

At the moment, the question's a diversion (as was your tedious article review). Hopefully, we'll get to it. Hang in there Roy, hang in there.

Actually, no, they are not diversions... they are at the core of these discussions. But, frankly, i don't care anymore. Your opinions are just that, and you have repeatedly demonstrated both ignorance and a gross inability to learn.

My my, you're tough as nails Roy. How unforgivable of me to have misunderstood your post. And your tone has been rather naughty with me lately, Roy. You test my kindness with this naughty tone of yours.....and I find this sorely vexing.

Which is the result of your blatant insensitivity on issues prior. And your condescending tone in this response doesn't pass the muster, especially for someone likely just out of high school speaking to someone significantly older. Want my respect, behave like an adult.

No Roy, I'm telling you.....that a woman's life is never in danger to where aborting her baby would save her life. You do realize that, don't you, Roy?

I realize that your ignorance on this issue supersedes your condescending tone. I recommend you visit an emergency room and pose that question.

Roy? *tap tap tap on Whitey's forehead with index finger* Roy?

/me dismisses juvenile instigation for what it is

I didn't say hysterectomy, Roy. I said HYSTEROTOMY ABORTION....also known as a caesarian abortion. And it is the abortion type with the greatest risk of complications! Look it up, Roy. Try to keep up....please!

It is not "also known as" a caesarian abortion. As well, what you described here: Vaehalr wrote, "removed from the mother along with the uterus and left to die" is not a hysterotomy abortion, but a distorted version of a caesarian hysterectomy, and what i based my response on. A hysterotomy abortion refers to a surgical incision made through the uterus and "DOES NOT" include the removal of the uterus.

So, if you cannot keep your descriptions correct, how do you expect me to determine whether you're talking about one thing or another? Obviously, I'm going to base my responses on the 'details' and not the misspellings. As to it being dangerous, the big scare on this was presented in the 70's (30+ years ago). It is now rarely performed in modern practice, although the risks associated, due to advances in medical procedures, are significantly reduced.

If abortion would have truly saved her life, then you would have told us the COD and we could have looked it up and been enlightened but nooooo, you'd rather try to use a couple of personal situations in hopes of gaining some kind of arguement leverage on a D&D message board. And you avoided telling us what "medical reasons" there were that required the abortion of your two kids. The reality is, there were none.....only reasons of convenience and selfishness. But chin up Roy! She had a Constitutional right to abort. It's all good!

I don't suppose you ever lost anyone. Because if you did, you would realize what a total ... you're acting like. I didn't provide any information because, as i said before, it's none of your business. Worse, when i did provide more details, you took it as an opportunity to behave even more insensitive. If you fail to recognize your own inappropriate behaviors, nothing i say will penetrate through your anonymous-toting juvenile skull.

So what's next? Going to post about how you could beat me up with your karate skills?

Is that what you're hoping for? I doubt it. I'm sure you're enjoying the anonymity and freedom provided, which allows you to continue in the most juvenile and insensitive manner possible, but our discussions here are at an end. Any future inappropriate comments to me will be reported as harassment, PMs included.

[Vaelahr]

A review of the articles/sites provided by Vaelahr --- ...........................................................

Wow Roy, you really are wound up over all this! Trying to type away those personal demons?

I see. Maybe you forgot when you posted this: Vaelahr wrote, "You're internet savvy. Show me wrong. You can't. And you're unwilling to do honest homework on the subject."

Here's the context:

No sweetheart, I'm telling you that abortion..... is not....... necessary....... to save a woman's life.

That, my friend..... is what's f*cked up.

Oh, that's interesting. I didn't realize you had a doctorates degree in medicine ... Vaelahr.

You're internet savvy. Show me wrong. You can't. And you're unwilling to do honest homework on the subject. I realise it's an uncomfortable topic for you and again, I'm sorry to hear of your losses.

See, Roy? I asked you to prove me wrong on the fact of abortions not being necessary to save women's lives.

...you never did answer my earlier questions about impregnation via rape or incest.

At the moment, the question's a diversion (as was your tedious article review). Hopefully, we'll get to it. Hang in there Roy, hang in there.

Actually, no, they are not diversions... they are at the core of these discussions. But, frankly, i don't care anymore. Your opinions are just that, and you have repeatedly demonstrated both ignorance and a gross inability to learn.

I've posted medical fact after medical fact and instead of you attempting to refute me intelligently, you accuse me of ignorance and arrogance. Are you surprised then that I take an irreverent and sarcastic tone with you?

No Roy, I'm telling you.....that a woman's life is never in danger to where aborting her baby would save her life. You do realize that, don't you, Roy?

I realize that your ignorance on this issue supersedes your condescending tone. I recommend you visit an emergency room and pose that question.

Again, you insist on accusing me of ignorance. If my statement is so erroneous, then why don't you prove me wrong as I challenged you earlier? You'd think with the vast resources of the internet, you could come up with at least one instance where performing an abortion, interrupting the continuum of human life and killing an unborn child, would save the life of the mother. Or admit you can't because there aren't. It's a lie by the pro-abortion crowd. The whole "but what about the life of the mother?" line is an emotional screen.

I didn't say hysterectomy, Roy. I said HYSTEROTOMY ABORTION....also known as a caesarian abortion. And it is the abortion type with the greatest risk of complications! Look it up, Roy. Try to keep up....please!

It is not "also known as" a caesarian abortion. As well, what you described here: Vaehalr wrote, "removed from the mother along with the uterus and left to die" is not a hysterotomy abortion, but a distorted version of a caesarian hysterectomy, and what i based my response on. A hysterotomy abortion refers to a surgical incision made through the uterus and "DOES NOT" include the removal of the uterus.

So, if you cannot keep your descriptions correct, how do you expect me to determine whether you're talking about one thing or another? Obviously, I'm going to base my responses on the 'details' and not the misspellings. As to it being dangerous, the big scare on this was presented in the 70's (30+ years ago). It is now rarely performed in modern practice, although the risks associated, due to advances in medical procedures, are significantly reduced.

It's so rare because it's so dangerous. The uterine wall is thicker than at term making blood loss such a risk. There were instances of uterus removal as well. The resulting scar from the abortion can rupture at any time during subsequent pregnancy so any woman who has had a hysterotomy must deliver any future children by cesarean section to avoid rupturing the scar during labor. Or have the uterus removed during the abortion.

If abortion would have truly saved her life, then you would have told us the COD and we could have looked it up and been enlightened but nooooo, you'd rather try to use a couple of personal situations in hopes of gaining some kind of arguement leverage on a D&D message board. And you avoided telling us what "medical reasons" there were that required the abortion of your two kids. The reality is, there were none.....only reasons of convenience and selfishness. But chin up Roy! She had a Constitutional right to abort. It's all good!

I don't suppose you ever lost anyone. Because if you did, you would realize what a total ... you're acting like. I didn't provide any information because, as i said before, it's none of your business. Worse, when i did provide more details, you took it as an opportunity to behave even more insensitive. If you fail to recognize your own inappropriate behaviors, nothing i say will penetrate through your anonymous-toting juvenile skull.

I don't wrap lies around people's deaths. Very difficult for me to show sensitivity with you when you do that. You link to a picture of dead/injured children and then lie about abortions and the death of a woman. You behave like a ghoul with such antics.

So what's next? Going to post about how you could beat me up with your karate skills?

Is that what you're hoping for? I doubt it. I'm sure you're enjoying the anonymity and freedom provided, which allows you to continue in the most juvenile and insensitive manner possible, but our discussions here are at an end. Any future inappropriate comments to me will be reported as harassment, PMs included.

I've heard you tough-talk online before, Roy. It wouldn't surprise me if you blah-blah about beating me up in RL or other such cornball dialogue. You even once requested that Mikayla (PA at the time) remove you from ALFA's membership. Why? Why not just leave? Are you that powerless over these forums?

[Veilan]

[Kest]

hI ROY i hope YoU dont miND me CallIN U ROY roy

totally not having a breakdown

[HATEFACE]

Both Whitey and Vealehr are off their ever lovin' rocker.

On a lighter note. I found this. Divide by zero? Nah! but Democrats would like you to believe it impossible.

"If you fail to recognize your own inappropriate behaviors, nothing i say will penetrate through your anonymous-toting juvenile skull."

[Mayhem]

Eh, I don't know whether WW's Medical facts are more "factier" than Vaelahr's Medical facts or vice versa.

Based purely on the tone of the posts... I can almost feel the spittle flying off Vaelahr's lips as he rants.

***

Dude, chill. Good,or Bad, right now you are coming off like Biff Tannen apishly rapping George McFly on the forehead.

"No McFly, I'm telling you... You do realize that, don't you, McFly?"

[Lusipher]

Based purely on the tone of the posts... I can almost feel the spittle flying off Vaelahr's lips as he rants.

And you dont from Whitey? They both have taken this too far.

[zicada]

True, this thread fails now.

Very interesting that the entire thread ended up being about abortion. Didn't see that one coming.

Anyway,

</thread>