I wish that people would not only support the unborn life, but also the born life.

Double standards are human being's nature. Its unfortunate but aslong human is alive, he or she will have more or less double standards. All we really can do is to have less double standards than men average.

Since most people cannot put price on human beings life, when they are born, man's value starts from price of single bullet...

Ok.

Mayo Clinic
WebMD
Another site, supported by the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Each of these say that spontaneous fetal movement starts around week 9 (I was off by a couple weeks, but in the right ballpark - mid-first trimester).

Studies showing response to sound around 26 weeks.
Response to sound from 21 weeks
Several other articles

More studies showing memory formation in utero.
Memories at 32 weeks
Memories at 30 weeks
The reason I'm linking to articles about memory and sound, are that they are indications of thinking, or put another way, cognition. True, the studies are looking at fetuses in the second and third trimesters. This doesn't prove, however, that fetuses are incapable of processing information earlier. Like I keep saying, better safe than sorry. It's one of the same reasons why I oppose the death penalty (I'm not trying to spark a new debate, honest )


What do you mean by 'fully developed'? You could argue that a five year old isn't 'fully developed' because he/she is going to grow much taller, and increase in mass considerably. So, my question is, what level of development constitutes a human?


Not true. The skull, along the rest of the bones, are fully formed by week 30, though they're still malleable.
It's true that there are pieces of the skull which are not yet fused together, which is perhaps where your confusion is coming from.


Partially true. Newborns can focus well on objects between 7 and 15 inches away, and this range expands as they grow. However, the ability to see doesn't make someone human.


Most babies don't start walking until 9 to 12 months after birth. Are they human?


Wrong again. "Fetus" is a name given for a specific stage of development (week 10 through delivery).


I've already said why "feeling pain" doesn't make a person human, or not human. (See my remark about the karate instructor).


Where is the 'sensible line', then? In the past (as you said) it was thought that child birth was the start of human life. You've indicated that the goalposts have moved, so does that mean that you consider later term abortions to be wrong?

Ultimately, this isn't subjective - a human is a human, no matter what "definition" we have. So again, since we (society) can't agree on when life actually starts, why not err on the safe side?

Again, the main point I was trying to make, was that I have reasons for being generally opposed to abortions, and those reasons are not motivated by religion.

-Joe

Thanks for the links.

It seems to me that the keys stage at which point there is any kind of cognition is around week 16 when the movements are described as "co-ordinated" and "active", and then 2-weeks later the baby can "hear" according to some.

Either way there is a 4-month time period when there is little to no real hard evidence that any movements etc are anything other than a direct response to growing. Some many years later during puberty, exactly the same spontaneous and uncontrolled movements occur in a brain that is fully functional, and with a nervous system that operates as well as it ever will.

From this I would surmise that terminating a pregnancy within the first 12-weeks is 100% OK, and anyone with the facts would agree, between 12-16 weeks there is a period where some people would argue that the foetus should not be terminated, and I have read that the signs of brain function appear as early as 16-18 weeks, but that is still not very easy to prove.

Its when you get to the 23rd week that brain function at a higher level definitely exists with REM. At this stage very few people would argue that there is no brain activity, and termination should only be performed if there are risks to the mother, the foetus, or the foetus has something wrong that will cause great and long suffering.

I cant pinpoint a specific time to say before is OK, and after is not, but what I have written above gives a vauge idea of the times involved. I would still leave the timescale to the professionals, and with the ultimate choice with the mother within the confines of what the doctors say. But certainly a pregnant person should be allowed to have an abortion within the first 12-weeks for any sensible reason (i.e. not including to spite the father).


Andy

This is the kind of retarded un-thinking that I am totally opposed to when discussing abortion, this arsehole is not the first person in the US to murder in cold blood because of some mumbo-jumbo in an old book. I hope they execute the bloke.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8486794.stm


Andy

Yeah, it's irritating to me that christains, especially while claiming to be righteous, pick and choose which parts of the bible they're going to follow (look at Exodus 20:13 for what I mean). I see it all the time, they forget the major rules, and somehow justify their bad behavior.

However, I agree - what he did was despicable and... well... premeditated murder. Additionally, it's actually counter-productive to what he really wants. Not only will mothers in Kansas continue having abortions (which, I think, is what he wanted to stop), his actions will also make it harder for rational anti-abortion people (I'd like to think I'm in that category) to get their point across.
I wonder if they have the death penalty in Kansas...

You're welcome.

I would have no qualms supporting legislation that made abortions illegal after 12 weeks(or even 20 weeks). It would (from my perspective) be a step in the right direction.

Regards,
Joe

Hey God...

Why is everyone convinced you're a dude?

I really am not.

Another question to god, of a Freudian nature.

"Tell me about your mother.?"


Andy

"Why do some people dislike others because they are different?"

I would ask why god took my dad too quickly aways from me/..

Part of their logic is that the unborn life is helpless. What they fail to notice is if you are at the wrong end of a smart bomb you are just as helpless. And most of those in nursing homes, aren't they helpless as well?

So much for that logic.

I've asked everybody else, so God, what's Natalie Portman's phone #?

dear god.
Why did intel chop off it's.......
pins. Is it becoming a woman?

Post resurrected due to heresy trial of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.

Pat as always has pointed out all of the things about this retarded descision by the dutch courts to take a Politician through the courts for "Heresy", who has been disallowed most of his witnesses, and the truth is not submittable as evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell# ... 6ZUZ9CPZII

So God, what do you think of this load of bullcrap.

I can only hope that this totally backfires on the government, and that Geert is set free, and gets into power, and subsequently does a fantastic job.


Andy

Hey God, what time is it?

Same time Zone as Atlanta.?

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=25


Andy

Both you and Pat don't have a clue.

Enlighten me, so I do have a clue, what Pat says in that video ties up with what I have read in the news, he just puts it more bluntly and from his angle (obviously a different angle to the newspapers).

Please tell me how this is not simply a "Heresy trial" for a start, then you could move on to explain why most of his witnesses were not allowed, then you can tell me why "truth" is not submittable as evidence in this bullshit "heresy trial".?

I wont say that I agree with everything that Geert has to say, but I cant just stand by and ignore a trial for someone saying the truth about a religion.


Andy

It's a bit hard to give a reply in writing to a 7+ minute speech, so I'll try to reply to a few lowlights, but first an explanation.

What exactly is Wilders being charged with?
Incitement of hatred towards Muslims, discrimination of Muslims, and insulting certain groups of society.
Things he proposed in the past: to forbid the Quran (not the Bible or any other holy book), to put an immigration stop on Muslims (not Christians or atheists, even if they're from the same country), and the infamous headscarf tax (no tax on hoods as worn by youngsters, or hats by distinguished people).
These propositions are obviously quite discriminatory.
That's what he's being charged with. The fact that he is a politician should make it obvious that this case is indeed severe, as all politicians are protected more for the things they say.

Another proposition by Wilders: striking our first amendment from the constitution (the non-discrimination act). Instead it should state that the Jewish-Christian and humanitarian tradition be the dominant culture in The Netherlands.
Another proposition by Wilders: closing the borders for any non-European immigrant. What he means, but doesn't say, is coloured people. This has been added to the charges against him.

So now, freedom of speech (7th amendment here). A great good.
I don't know how this is regarded in other countries, but by law, one can not speak freely without limits. One has a responsibility according to law, meaning you have to regard other regulations and principles of the constitution.
Limits to freedom of speech can be: defamation/slander, insults and discrimination.

15 of the 18 witnesses Wilders invited aren't allowed. 5 of those 15 are law experts. Another 5 of of them are radical Muslims (yep, really - one of them is Mohammed Bouyeri, who killed Theo van Gogh). The last 5 are Islam experts. The court finds, Wilders tries to change this trial into a political platform, and they will not allow this.
It is not uncommon (at all) that a court dismiss witnesses. The decisionmaking is not political (as Pat wants you to believe) but simply judicial, and a practical "don't waste time if you already know".


I think I'll not even respond to most of Pat's chat. If one doesn't understand law in general (or Dutch law in particular, which I can imagine, him being foreign) then there is google. I know he's on the internet.
Spouting off blunt remarks for effect without knowing what you're talking about is plain silly. I don't have a problem with people giving their unsalted opinions, but at least get your facts straight.

The judges made sure the trial coincides with the elections? They must have had a glass ball, the government fell February 20th.


Wow, am I glad he isn't a judge.
The trial is just (Wilders is being represented by one of the top lawyers - you can tell he's had some media training too), and in this political climate the trial is very needed as well.

This is the part that is going to be interesting to me, and it pretty much comes to to the definition of such things, and how the law protects some elements more than others i.e. is the law itself biased.



I dont agree with that.



I thought there was a little more to it, people were allowed in so long as the laws of their new country over-ruled any other such laws (sharia), and they behaved in a dignified way that would suit their new country, and integrated well. If it is how I understood it, I agree 100%.



I am fully in favour of the proposed french partial ban on full face coverings, and am not aware on his "tax" idea, a simple ban would work well where a "tax" would be difficult to uphold and is a silly idea on many levels.



I can see where he is going with that idea (trying to keep the Netherland as much like it is now for the future), but the way you put it sounds wrong.



Again, he has a point, I would like to see the UK do just that (with a few obvious clauses to actually protect and help the innocent and helpless, whilst rejecting the cheats, liars and criminals), so again, this is mostly down to the wording in my opinion.



I agree that there has to be a line that should not be crossed, but the truth should carry far more weight in this regard, whilst insults and discrimination should be taken in context and in second place to the truth.



I know its a strange collection of witnesses, but from one viewpoint simply dismissing them proves his point that Islam, and its radicals will be proven wrong on so many levels even as "his" witnesses.



Politicians help make the judiciary what it is, so it is political to a degree, and highlighting that could pave the way for changes to the judicial process.



Comes right back to the fact that his called wiitnesses would prove his point.



First and foremost Pat is there to be funny and take the piss out of religion, secondly because he hates religion he is going to be biased to some degree, and he wont be 100% accurate unless it suits his point, whilst omitting things that would not help his cause.



I did not know about the particulars of the dates and events, we dont get a lot of (accurate) info on this case in the UK, its either propoganda or defensive.

Thanks very much for giving me this information that has helped to round out my views on this case.


Andy

You don't agree to his opinion, or that he said this?
If the latter:

'Qur'an should be banned' - Wilders strikes again





All Muslims, period.
[In fact it's worse, also Christians and atheists will be stopped, if they come from a Muslim country - when is a country a Muslim country...?]

Geert Wilders calls to stop Muslim immigration



Another article (from "view from the right"): Wilders says: stop Muslim immigration





Agreed. A ban on full face coverings isn't discriminatory.
His proposal wasn't well thought through. It does win a few from the electorate though, and that's what he's after: a simple one-liner for effect.



What is truth?
You make it sound as if though the "truth" is easy to ascertain, or even a given.
In some trials, a large portion of the time spent is just to figure out what happened, or in other words what the truth of the matter is.

There are different kinds of truth: subjective, relative, objective and absolute.
The "truth" in Wilders' case is clearly a subjective one.

The code of criminal law handles insults, the constitution handles discrimination.
There is no act for "truth" in our code of criminal law or our constitution, therefore it is subordinate to insults and discrimination.
Not the other way around.

Did you ask GamingGod?.....

I dont agree that it should be banned outright, but I did enjoy his message in Fitna about reif I were to propose that I would not stop at the Quran, but that is a moot point as I would not propose such a thing, its just asking for more violence.



Its not a nice thing to say, but it is true, and as mentioned before I believe that in such scenarios the truth must win over an anient religious book thats pretty much says the same thing as Hitlers hate manual.

http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2 ... kampf.html



Again I dont agree with this, there is no clear aim, and no way to defend such an action. There is no reason not to have different policys regarding people coming into the country from X country vs Y country. People coming in from Sweden are likely to be let in with few questions, wheras someone from Nigeria will be quized - I see no problem there at all, so long as it has a purpose, a blanket NO from all (muslim dictatorships I assume) is plain wrong, why not just quiz them more than the Nigerians.?



I would hope so too.



True, here is a bit of truth, (I dont have the time right now to identify which one it is), feel free to tell me what you think.

Statement: The Quran has a totalitarian, dicriminatory ideology that promotes hatred, violence, murder and of course discrimination towards homosexuals, females, and non-muslims, it wants its followeers to convert, enslave or murder non-muslims and it wants to replace existing laws with Sharia - Mein Kampf is really not that different.



So what kind of truth is in my "Statement" above.? And what implication would that have on the law regarding insults and ironically discrimination if I were to say that in the Netherlands.? And lastly, why should someone not be allowed to speak the truth about something as nasty and hate filled as the Quran, when they are allowed to say such things about the North Korean dictatorship, or Iran etc etc.

The truth should not be ignored because the topic is religion.


Andy

pro.

dear god,
why do civilians hang out in war zones?

Chances are they were there before the war was.

Hey god, its me again.

Is there any sane reason why the Pope and many other priests who are either Paedophiles or covered up paedophilia should NOT be arrested, prosecuted and jailed as governed by the evidence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... anity.html

PS: If you want a laugh read some of the comments from the bottom up (oldest at the bottom). its really funny and sometimes disturbing what some religion nuts say.


Andy

Muslim fanatics are at it again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8636455.stm

Threatening to murder anyone who depicts a long dead illiterate, warmongering, paedophile who hated women who some brainwashed idiots consider the "perfect man" and think that violence and threats of violence is the only answer to their own small minded problems that no-one else cares about.

God you deaf bastard, are you ever going to intervene.?


Andy

Maybe he is intervenning... who knows ?
Don't forget that it is written somewhere that God started his "career" of tolerance by kicking Adam and Eve out of paradise for having a good orgasm (forgot the book title, sorry )