For those that want God out of the White House....

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

more ignorant comments

As are yours.

Quote

nor have i backpedaled in anyway

Thats a matter of opinion.

I can back my definition up, lets see you defend your [I]opinion[/I] logically. Got some substance to back up either of these assertions?? until you can, how about you stop making them?? Show me where my definition has changed and I’ll buy all you all the beer you can drink this year.. you cant, because I have never backpedaled..

Quote

Here is the problem..You require it to INDEPENDENT...Last I chekced that would be around age 10..and age 18 to be legal

Well current law shows that if you kill a third term baby you can be charged with murder....Its kinda hard to murder a body part.

you are missing the defining characteristics of 'independent' (does not rely on another life form for fundamental biological functions). Perhaps you should have listed them (as i suggested) to become more aware of what is being discussed. Children have legal status long before they reach 18 and are considered 'adults'. The discussion is to determine at what point a 'fetus' becomes a ‘child’ to be granted that status.

is a third term baby capable of living outside the womb without heroic medical measures that replicate the womb environment??

Quote

You and I will not agree. So I'm done.
As far as I am concerned your opinion is flawed and not well thought out.

It failed the first argument against it. But feel free to continue to hold that belief if ya like, I just don't care what you think about it anymore.

Give up if you wish, you have yet to provide any logical reasoning against the definition, but you've done a good job with distractors and irrelevant issues, all without addressing the real point.. My definition hasn’t 'failed' or even been refuted in any logical manner ("i dont believe that" doenst count) anywhere in the discussion, and it is not an 'opinion'.

Perhaps some research is warranted? I suggest you start with [I]'opinion & definitions”[/I] and spend some time getting reacquainted (I’m assuming it was taught in school at some point) with the [I]“scientific method"[/I] and how it is used to create definitions, and how it can be applied to almost any subject objectively. It would make discussions such as this soooooo much easier… sometimes its almost like we are speaking completely different languages, but the words somehow sound the same..

1st you argue how I'm trying to define 'life', showing you failed to grasp the true nature of the discussion in the first place, and now seem completely unwilling to go back and “read for comprehension" and so have yet to understood what is being defined or the method used to create such definitions. So perhaps your right, there is little point in continuing the discussion [I]with you[/I], since you wont even educate yourself on the topic or read to see what has actually been said vs what you believe has been said, before making gross assertions and pointless attacks with no basis to support them.

No one has yet to really address the definition, or provide a better option in any way other than "i don’t believe that!!" Which isn’t a very logical basis for anything.

Do you wish the laws of your country to be written from a position of ‘feelings and belief’ or ‘logic and reason’? Which do you believe is best applied to everyone?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

I like fried chicken.

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

I like fried chicken.

Funny, so do I. Wait a minute, this is speakers corner, I'm supposed to go for your jugular in disagreement, right? Damn. Someday I'll get this right...

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Wait a minute, this is speakers corner, I'm supposed to go for your jugular in disagreement, right?

Hamstringing is perfectly acceptable as well.