Rayman Pirate-Community

The principle is the same: you're terminating potential life. Besides, there's no difference in killing a sperm and killing a sperm that is under early development.

No, not at all. The sperm isn't under development yet, and it is not sure it will even find a egg cell ( well, again, whatever you call it in English language ). While if the seed cell has already found an egg cell and combined, it is almost sure that it will live.

Terminating a hardly-devloped embryonic foetus is no more cruel than terminating an ordinary sperm. They both have potential to create life, as I said earlier. And more importantly, the 'seed cell' as you call it is too young to develop a nervous system or a brain that functions properly so it wouldn't undergo any form of suffering whatsoever regardless of its 'combination'. Come on, abortion is a totally acceptable practice, just admit it.

Tobbe wrote:

stan423321 wrote: Well, you think Jews from 2100 years ago knew about "not-a-full number"?

YES!

OBJECTION!
Can you see this list don't contain Jews before 100BC?

And in case of this building (Is it Salomon's temple?): yes, I think it was possible to build this without finding good way to count length of something which is not simple. The big building is rectangular, and the round thing in center could be done without counting length of circle.

Xenon wrote:Come on, abortion is a totally acceptable practice, just admit it.

Why?!

There are a few things which are hard to describe in English. I'm not gonna blast you just because you're after aborting... but this thing is a bit too more! We have the freedom of thinking, and I'm not gonna rush it just because you think my thinking doesn't make sense.

So, my questions: can an ovum (Joshua: I think that's the "egg cell") multiply? Can sperm multiply? And finally - can foetus' cells multiply?

If your answer is another than no, no, yes, I think we know different scienctific facts.

I can't seem to attain any sort of point from that. Can you explain?

Yes, I can explain. This means they are kinda different. As long as I remember from biology lessons, life is based on eating, s****ing (ok, I think there's a better word for this one, but I don't know it in English), and multiplication. Is it clear?

stan423321 wrote:

Tobbe wrote:

stan423321 wrote: Well, you think Jews from 2100 years ago knew about "not-a-full number"?

YES!

OBJECTION!
Can you see this list don't contain Jews before 100BC?

*Facepalm*

The list doesn't include "Tobbe, ca. 2000AD", either. Does that mean I don't know that pi is not a round number? Of course not! The fact that both Egyptian and Babylonian mathemathicians knew a very exact value of pi centuries before the reign of King Solomon strongly suggests that the Jewish engineers of that time also would have known.

Anyway, the point I've been trying to make is not that the Jews didn't know that pi wasn't a whole number, but that The Bible is not inerrant (the logical interpretation of this passage is that pi=3, altough it can admittedly be interpreteded differently if you read it through your "Jesus-goggles"), and that it thus cannot have been written by an omniscient and infallible creator, like some Christians claim it is.

stan423321 wrote:And in case of this building (Is it Salomon's temple?): yes, I think it was possible to build this without finding good way to count length of something which is not simple.

Not only is it not possible to build a nice-looking temple of that size without accurate methods of measurement, but Solomon's Temple was built to exact specifications, something that definately wouldn't have been possible without such methods.

Straight the point, it clearly proves that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and that's where creationist pricks lamentably fail.

Literally? Of course not. I agree here.

Bible wasn't "written by God" by any means. We here in Church believe that it was written "under help of God".

Tobbe wrote:

stan423321 wrote:

Tobbe wrote:

stan423321 wrote: Well, you think Jews from 2100 years ago knew about "not-a-full number"?

YES!

OBJECTION!
Can you see this list don't contain Jews before 100BC?

*Facepalm*

The list doesn't include "Tobbe, ca. 2000AD", either. Does that mean I don't know that pi is not a round number? Of course not! The fact that both Egyptian and Babylonian mathemathicians knew a very exact value of pi centuries before the reign of King Solomon strongly suggests that the Jewish engineers of that time also would have known.

*Facepalm*
<Oh well, another analog.>

OBJECTION!

The fact that both we in Europe and another people in China invented wheels long long ago strongly suggested that other civilisations would have it too. But South America have been a surprise. The fact that both we, Arabic people and Hindian (Asia-Indian) people, and even Egyptians had numbering system based on ten (yes, Hindian and Arabic, and our current one are of the same origin, but Roman and Egyptian system also uses ten as base), suggested that all homo sapiens people would use it. But a lot of civilisations used 60 instead.

stan423321 wrote:Yes, I can explain. This means they are kinda different. As long as I remember from biology lessons, life is based on eating, s****ing (ok, I think there's a better word for this one, but I don't know it in English), and multiplication. Is it clear?

But what has that got to do with my argument, or indeed the subject of abortion?

Err, that foetus is already life when ovum isn't?

EDIT: Matyuv, would you like to describe what's so funny in my post about freedom of thinking? I know there's no freedom of thinking in some countries, but I'm in one which in theory protects it.

'Alive', yes, but it can't experience any sensation. That's the point at hand that you don't seem to be grasping.

Anyway, I don't know any Christians who claim the Bible is totally accurate, and any who do seriously need to reconsider their own understanding of Christianity. The Bible simply cannot be taken for 100% damning evidence concerning the world's creation and the life of Jesus... especially when it was told from several different accounts which aren't even authoratitave. It's multi-perspective, for crying out loud. And what's this pi business about, anyway? The scriptures were written by uneducated people who lived far before the time of advanced mathematics (or even basic mathematics, lol) so couldn't comprehend pi for its meaning. So it's no surprise some of the Bible's contents are incorrect.

Terminating a hardly-devloped embryonic foetus is no more cruel than terminating an ordinary sperm. They both have potential to create life, as I said earlier. And more importantly, the 'seed cell' as you call it is too young to develop a nervous system or a brain that functions properly so it wouldn't undergo any form of suffering whatsoever regardless of its 'combination'. Come on, abortion is a totally acceptable practice, just admit it.

You seem to completely miss my point.I gave you the point that an early foetus doesn't feel pain. But it is developing. And you're taking away it's right to live.

I'm also doing that by not conceiving, haha.

Joshua822 wrote: You seem to completely miss my point.I gave you the point that an early foetus doesn't feel pain. But it is developing. And you're taking away it's right to live.

An "early foetus" is called an embryo, and it doesn't have a right to live because it is neither living nor human. It's just a bunch of cells.

And if you're gonna start with the "right to life!", you must logically be against abortion in all cases, even when the woman has been raped.

And btw, a comment on stan's comment a few pages back that people who concieve while drunk should take responsibility for their actions: You have obviously never been drunk.

I'll be back later to answer stan's ridicolous arguments in the 'pi debate'.

An "early foetus" is called an embryo, and it doesn't have a right to live because it is neither living nor human.

*Sigh* It will become human. And why doesn't it have a right to live ? That's bullshit, it's not because an embryo isn't completely developed yet that it has no right to live.

It's just a bunch of cells.

So are we, and everything else that's alive -_-

And if you're gonna start with the "right to life!", you must logically be against abortion in all cases, even when the woman has been raped.

Not at all. f you can't prevent it, like when being raped, then i think abortion is fine. Why ? Yes, i do believe that everything has the right to live, but that life should be wanted by the mother before.

Joshua822 wrote:
*Sigh* It will become human. And why doesn't it have a right to live?

It would have if it was alive.

Josh wrote:

It's just a bunch of cells.

So are we, and everything else that's alive -_-

You forget about the electric activity in the brain and central nervous systems. Living humans have it, dead ones and embryos don't. u ph4iL.

The fact that these cells cannot experience suffering, in itself, countermands his whole argument. I just don't see why this is so difficult to recognise.

You're saying that it's alright to kill someone if they don't feel it?

Xenon wrote:

So the Bible is the ""Approximate Word of God"?

It actually is, and most religious people are aware of this.

You just admitted that you believe in God!

spiraldoor wrote:You're saying that it's alright to kill someone if they don't feel it?

If by 'someone' you mean a group of senseless cells, then yes.

spiraldoor wrote:You just admitted that you believe in God!

Where/how?

Xenon wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:You're saying that it's alright to kill someone if they don't feel it?

If by 'someone' you mean a group of senseless cells, then yes.

Your post heavily implied that you thought abortion was acceptable because the foetus doesn't feel pain.

Xenon wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:You just admitted that you believe in God!

Where/how?

I quoted you a moment ago. Read the quote. Carefully.