about when does life begin

[Oleg Smirnov]

http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183

Nice slide show.

[%]

Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> Nice slide show.

my life began when i say it began and ,
it will end when i tell it to end

[W.T.S.]

In article <klhdp4$osm$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
>
> http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
>
> Nice slide show.
>
Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception, ever. No baby is
ever involved in any abortion.
Any other questions?
Next time, consult a web site with actual information, not an internet
lie rag run by forced-birther loons.

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
>
http://tinyurl.com/anghyfr
>
http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x
>
http://tinyurl.com/b29z62n
>

[Oleg Smirnov]

W.T.S., news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net

> In article <klhdp4$osm$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...

>> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183

>>
>> Nice slide show.
>>
> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.

That's not correct.

[skye...@yahoo.com]

On Apr 27, 1:55 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> Nice slide show.

Life is an ongoing process that began 4.7 mya on Earth.

If you're talking about abortion, the question of when "life" begins
isn't germane to anything. The salient question is "When is the
nervous system hooked fully up, when can the fetus attain
consciousness and live on its own, with care, outside of the mother's
body?" Before the fetus can attain consciousness, it can't be said to
be a "person." And under the United States Constitution, you have to
be *born* in order to be a person.

Why don't you go find yourself a nice hobby, Oleg, and stay the hell
out of women's personal business?

--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
--

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <klim3o$ke1$1...@os.motzarella.org>,

Of course it is. It is fact.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Oleg Smirnov]

skye...@yahoo.com,
news:5ef87cc7-0912-4d7c...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com

> On Apr 27, 1:55 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:

>> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>>
>> Nice slide show.
>
> Life is an ongoing process that began 4.7 mya on Earth.
>
> If you're talking about abortion,

No, not primarily.

> the question of when
> "life" begins isn't germane to anything. The salient
> question is "When is the nervous system hooked fully up,
> when can the fetus attain consciousness and live on its
> own, with care, outside of the mother's body?" Before
> the fetus can attain consciousness, it can't be said to
> be a "person."

As we already have found, your initial feeble idea
that the consciousness takes place along with the
first breath was wrong.

Other farfetched theories are unscientific as well.

> And under the United States Constitution,
> you have to be *born* in order to be a person.

Irrelevant.

> Why don't you go find yourself a nice hobby, Oleg, and
> stay the hell out of women's personal business?

That would be sexism and chauvinism to claim the
subject to be women's business, such uncivilized
obscurantism does look not good.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Jeanne Douglas, news:hlwdjsd2-09E1AE...@news.giganews.com

> In article <klim3o$ke1$1...@os.motzarella.org>, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>
> wrote:

>>>> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>>>>
>>>> Nice slide show.
>>>>
>>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
>>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>>
>> That's not correct.
>
> Of course it is. It is fact.

You'll be unable to prove.

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:47:04 -0700 (PDT), "skye...@yahoo.com"
<skye...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 27, 1:55�pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>>
>> Nice slide show.
>
>Life is an ongoing process that began 4.7 mya on Earth.
>
>If you're talking about abortion, the question of when "life" begins
>isn't germane to anything. The salient question is "When is the
>nervous system hooked fully up, when can the fetus attain
>consciousness and live on its own, with care, outside of the mother's
>body?" Before the fetus can attain consciousness, it can't be said to
>be a "person." And under the United States Constitution, you have to
>be *born* in order to be a person.
>
>Why don't you go find yourself a nice hobby, Oleg, and stay the hell
>out of women's personal business?

Those who cannot get into it the normal way always find another.


--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Devils Advocaat]

On 28 Apr, 09:22, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> W.T.S.,news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net
>
> > In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...

> >>http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> >> Nice slide show.
>
> > Life begins at birth.  It doesn't begin at conception,
> > ever.  No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>
> That's not correct.

Do you call a teenager an adult?

[Oleg Smirnov]

Devils Advocaat,
news:e760f6db-59cd-44a1...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com

> On 28 Apr, 09:22, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>> W.T.S., news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net

>>>> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>>
>>>> Nice slide show.
>>
>>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
>>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>>
>> That's not correct.
>
> Do you call a teenager an adult?

A teenager is not alive?

[Devils Advocaat]

On 28 Apr, 15:13, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> Devils Advocaat,news:e760f6db-59cd-44a1...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com

>
> > On 28 Apr, 09:22, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:

> >> W.T.S.,news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net

> >>>>http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> >>>> Nice slide show.
>
> >>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> >>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>
> >> That's not correct.
>
> > Do you call a teenager an adult?
>
> A teenager is not alive?

Answer the question as put.

[alen]

On Apr 28, 4:18 pm, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...

>
> >http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
>
> > Nice slide show.
>
> Life begins at birth.  It doesn't begin at conception, ever.  No baby is
> ever involved in any abortion.
> Any other questions?
> Next time, consult a web site with actual information, not an internet
> lie rag run by forced-birther loons.

Unfortunately for you, the Eternal Father, who
is the one Emperor of Eternity and Infinity, and
who is the author of all life and all other things,
doesn't agree with your human definitions and
declarations. When you die, you will continue to
exist, whether you like it or not and, since you
will be in opposition to the Eternal Emperor, whose
word is the only eternal truth and law, it will
be impossible for you to be accepted, so you
will have to be cast aside and abandoned to
your fate.

It is very foolish for any woman (and her
supporters, like you) to consider her own
convenience, comfort, safety, etc. in this short
physical life only, by aborting her unborn child,
in order to get rid of her pregnancy, and thereby
throw herself into worse and far longer lasting
agonies in the other world, which she won't have
the faintest idea how to get herself out of.

Alen

[Oleg Smirnov]

Devils Advocaat,
news:881c0ba3-70dc-43ef...@s4g2000vbr.googlegroups.com

Ask relevant questions.

[Syd M.]

On Apr 28, 4:22 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> W.T.S.,news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net
>

> > In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...

> >>http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> >> Nice slide show.
>
> > Life begins at birth.  It doesn't begin at conception,
> > ever.  No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>
> That's not correct.

No, you are wrong.

PDW

[Oleg Smirnov]

Syd M., news:41697b59-2b8a-41a1...@i2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com

I still think I'm right.

We don't see anywhere in the nature such
a phenomenon that something was not alive
and then it would toggle to be alive.

> PDW

[duke]

Right. Life begins when the first cell splits, or before. Dead cells don't
divide.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[Devils Advocaat]

On 28 Apr, 15:29, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> Devils Advocaat,news:881c0ba3-70dc-43ef...@s4g2000vbr.googlegroups.com

It is perfectly relevant.

Think.

Words.

Meaning.

Context.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Devils Advocaat,
news:26ab8508-afb8-46f0...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com

One do not need faulty analogies for proper reasoning.

[duke]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In article <klhdp4$osm$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
>>
>> http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
>>
>> Nice slide show.

>Life begins at birth.

For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already. Heeheehee.

[Robert H]

On Apr 28, 4:22 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> W.T.S.,news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net
>

> > In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...

> >>http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> >> Nice slide show.
>
> > Life begins at birth.  It doesn't begin at conception,
> > ever.  No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>
> That's not correct.

You are talking to a troll. WTS is nothing more than a troll.

[Robert H]

On Apr 28, 8:34 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> Jeanne Douglas,news:hlwdjsd2-09E1AE...@news.giganews.com
>
> > In article <klim3o$ke...@os.motzarella.org>, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>

> > wrote:
> >>>>http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> >>>> Nice slide show.
>
> >>> Life begins at birth.  It doesn't begin at conception,
> >>> ever.  No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>
> >> That's not correct.
>
> > Of course it is. It is fact.
>
> You'll be unable to prove.

And you are correct. But they have to say that, otherwise they can't
justify their opinions or position.

[Robert H]

On Apr 28, 11:07 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> Syd M.,news:41697b59-2b8a-41a1...@i2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com

>
> > On Apr 28, 4:22 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> >>>>http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> >>>> Nice slide show.
>
> >>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> >>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>
> >> That's not correct.
>
> > No, you are wrong.
>
> I still think I'm right.

You are

[casey]

On Apr 29, 1:12 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:22:26 +0400, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:

> >W.T.S.,news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net
> >> In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...

>
> >>>http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> >>> Nice slide show.
>
> >> Life begins at birth.  It doesn't begin at conception,
> >> ever.  No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>
> >That's not correct.
>
> Right.  Life begins when the first cell splits, or before.  Dead cells don't
> divide.

The first cell is alive before it splits, not when it splits.

It is not an individual human life however unless you
want to say every cell in your body is an individual
human life. You are a colony of cells not a single
cell. A single human cell is no more a human than
a single pixel is a picture. That first cell has the
potential to grow more than one colony of cells we
call humans. (Identical twins). Your mind comes
on line when the cells that specialize as neurons
start doing "mind". What we call "being alive" is
the brain doing mind. A brain dead person is no
longer alive in that sense.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 28 Apr, 17:04, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> Devils Advocaat,news:26ab8508-afb8-46f0...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com

It is not a faulty analogy.

Since you're reluctant to address it from that angle, let me ask you
this.

What is an unborn human called?

[Oleg Smirnov]

Robert H,
news:96514f05-c108-4e70...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com

> On Apr 28, 8:34 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>> Jeanne Douglas, news:hlwdjsd2-09E1AE...@news.giganews.com

>>>>>> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>>
>>>>>> Nice slide show.
>>
>>>>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
>>>>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>>
>>>> That's not correct.
>>
>>> Of course it is. It is fact.
>>
>> You'll be unable to prove.
>
> And you are correct. But they have to say that, otherwise
> they can't justify their opinions or position.

It looks like a self-zombiing. They repeat
easy slogans like 'magic spells'. And this is
in combination with declared atheistic agenda.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Robert H,
news:2d84f576-e9ff-4539...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com

> On Apr 28, 4:22 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>> W.T.S., news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net

>>>> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>>
>>>> Nice slide show.
>>
>>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
>>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>>
>> That's not correct.
>
> You are talking to a troll. WTS is nothing more than a
> troll.

Oh I have noticed it.

[Oleg Smirnov]

casey, news:1f86e480-20fc-4069...@lr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

> On Apr 29, 1:12 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:22:26 +0400, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>>> W.T.S., news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net

>>>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
>>>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>>
>>> That's not correct.
>>
>> Right. Life begins when the first cell splits, or
>> before. Dead cells don't divide.
>
> The first cell is alive before it splits, not when it
> splits.
>
> It is not an individual human life however unless you
> want to say every cell in your body is an individual
> human life. You are a colony of cells not a single
> cell. A single human cell is no more a human than
> a single pixel is a picture. That first cell has the
> potential to grow more than one colony of cells we
> call humans. (Identical twins).

That's about right.

> Your mind comes
> on line when the cells that specialize as neurons
> start doing "mind". What we call "being alive" is
> the brain doing mind. A brain dead person is no
> longer alive in that sense.

Does it mean the brain is dead before birth?

Does it toggle to 'alive mode' right at birth?

[Oleg Smirnov]

Devils Advocaat,
news:7ba9bc81-30ba-4981...@o9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com

I'll be thinking about that.

[casey]

On Apr 29, 5:06 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> casey,news:1f86e480-20fc-4069...@lr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

>
> > On Apr 29, 1:12 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:22:26 +0400, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:

> >>> W.T.S.,news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net

> >>>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> >>>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>
> >>> That's not correct.
>
> >> Right. Life begins when the first cell splits, or
> >> before. Dead cells don't divide.
>
> > The first cell is alive before it splits, not when it
> > splits.
>
> > It is not an individual human life however unless you
> > want to say every cell in your body is an individual
> > human life. You are a colony of cells not a single
> > cell. A single human cell is no more a human than
> > a single pixel is a picture. That first cell has the
> > potential to grow more than one colony of cells we
> > call humans. (Identical twins).
>
> That's about right.
>
> > Your mind comes
> > on line when the cells that specialize as neurons
> > start doing "mind". What we call "being alive" is
> > the brain doing mind. A brain dead person is no
> > longer alive in that sense.
>
> Does it mean the brain is dead before birth?

Brain death means that the neurons themselves have
died and there is no longer any hope of the patient
waking up. A yet to be born baby is not brain dead.
I don't know if the baby is awoken at birth from a sleep.
You might have to google for that question.

> Does it toggle to 'alive mode' right at birth?

I consider dreaming being alive in the conscious
sense so does a baby dream? Does the baby
have any kind of subjective experience before it
is born? At a guess I would say it does but that
is something I don't know for sure.

All we know is that every cell in your body has
a life of its own and your life is that of a colony
of cells not of a single cell or even a group of
cells that haven't yet specialized and multiplied
in number to make a human colony.

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 28, 12:06 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> casey,news:1f86e480-20fc-4069...@lr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 1:12 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:22:26 +0400, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:

> >>> W.T.S.,news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net

> >>>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> >>>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>
> >>> That's not correct.
>
> >> Right. Life begins when the first cell splits, or
> >> before. Dead cells don't divide.
>
> > The first cell is alive before it splits, not when it
> > splits.
>
> > It is not an individual human life however unless you
> > want to say every cell in your body is an individual
> > human life. You are a colony of cells not a single
> > cell. A single human cell is no more a human than
> > a single pixel is a picture. That first cell has the
> > potential to grow more than one colony of cells we
> > call humans. (Identical twins).
>
> That's about right.
>
> > Your mind comes
> > on line when the cells that specialize as neurons
> > start doing "mind". What we call "being alive" is
> > the brain doing mind. A brain dead person is no
> > longer alive in that sense.
>
> Does it mean the brain is dead before birth?

No, it means it's not "hooked up," rather like a house that hasn't
been wired for electricity yet.

>
> Does it toggle to 'alive mode' right at birth?

It *does*, actually. Around the time of natural birth, a protein is
produced that allows the brain to begin the long swim toward
consciousness (not totally complete at birth, but in process). Until
that particular protein is produced, consciousness is not possible,
sentience is not possible, and personality - personhood - does not
exist.

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 28, 5:32 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> skyey...@yahoo.com,news:5ef87cc7-0912-4d7c...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com

>
> > On Apr 27, 1:55 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> >>http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> >> Nice slide show.
>
> > Life is an ongoing process that began 4.7 mya on Earth.
>
> > If you're talking about abortion,
>
> No, not primarily.
>
> > the question of when
> > "life" begins isn't germane to anything.  The salient
> > question is "When is the nervous system hooked fully up,
> > when can the fetus attain consciousness and live on its
> > own, with care, outside of the mother's body?"  Before
> > the fetus can attain consciousness, it can't be said to
> > be a "person."
>
> As we already have found, your initial feeble idea
> that the consciousness takes place along with the
> first breath was wrong.

Google it, dumbass. Around the time of natural birth, a protein is
manufactured that allows the fetal brain to begin the process of
consciousness.

>
> Other farfetched theories are unscientific as well.

Google is your friend. Probably the only one you have.

>
> > And under the United States Constitution,
> > you have to be *born* in order to be a person.
>
> Irrelevant.

It's highly relevant to women living in the United States.

>
> > Why don't you go find yourself a nice hobby, Oleg, and
> > stay the hell out of women's personal business?
>
> That would be sexism and chauvinism to claim the
> subject to be women's business, such uncivilized
> obscurantism does look not good.

Then I'm a sexist and a chauvinist, because childbearing (or not) *is*
women's business. Unless a particular woman wants to include her
partner - entirely her choice - any given pregnancy is nobody's
business but *hers*. And if you thing that "does look not good," I
DON'T CARE. As long as women bear 100% of the physical risk of
pregnancy, that's going to be how it is, and there's not one damn
thing you can do about it.

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 28, 6:38 am, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:47:04 -0700 (PDT), "skyey...@yahoo.com"

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <skyey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 27, 1:55 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> >>http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> >> Nice slide show.
>
> >Life is an ongoing process that began 4.7 mya on Earth.
>
> >If you're talking about abortion, the question of when "life" begins
> >isn't germane to anything.  The salient question is "When is the
> >nervous system hooked fully up, when can the fetus attain
> >consciousness and live on its own, with care, outside of the mother's
> >body?"  Before the fetus can attain consciousness, it can't be said to
> >be a "person."  And under the United States Constitution, you have to
> >be *born* in order to be a person.
>
> >Why don't you go find yourself a nice hobby, Oleg, and stay the hell
> >out of women's personal business?
>
> Those who cannot get into it the normal way always find another.

'Deed they do, Don, 'deed they do. More's the pity.

--
Brenda

[elizabeth]

On Apr 28, 5:32 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:

Smegma, dearie,
using convoluted sentences with words you don't comprehend doesn't
make you some sort of pundit, just another online douche.

> > Why don't you go find yourself a nice hobby, Oleg, and
> > stay the hell out of women's personal business?
>

> That would be sexism and chauvinism to claim the
> subject to be women's business, such uncivilized
> obscurantism does look not good.

When men get pregnant, abortion is their business.

[elizabeth]

On Apr 28, 7:21 am, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 4:18 pm, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
>
> > >http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
>
> > > Nice slide show.
>
> > Life begins at birth.  It doesn't begin at conception, ever.  No baby is
> > ever involved in any abortion.
> > Any other questions?
> > Next time, consult a web site with actual information, not an internet
> > lie rag run by forced-birther loons.
>
> Unfortunately for you, the Eternal Father, who
> is the one Emperor of Eternity and Infinity, and
> who is the author of all life and all other things,
> doesn't agree with your human definitions and
> declarations. When you die, you will continue to
> exist, whether you like it or not and, since you
> will be in opposition to the Eternal Emperor, whose
> word is the only eternal truth and law, it will
> be impossible for you to be accepted, so you
> will have to be cast aside and abandoned to
> your fate.

Oh, my ... .

> It is very foolish for any woman (and her
> supporters, like you) to consider her own
> convenience, comfort, safety, etc.

And sexist, sociopathic, and nasty to insist that the woman's life and
safety are not worth considering.

> in this short
> physical life only, by aborting her unborn child,

So you're an undead corpse? BTW, one def of unborn is never born.

> in order to get rid of her pregnancy, and thereby
> throw herself into worse and far longer lasting
> agonies in the other world, which she won't have
> the faintest idea how to get herself out of.

Well, dearie, since the bible does not condemn abortion, and it was
well known and widely practiced (See _Eve's Herbs_ by John Riddle for
the Hx of abortion and contraception), and since xian dislike of
abortion is a relatively recent (mid 1800s) bit of dogma, you'd best
heed the word of Jesus when he told his disciples that it's up to God
to judge, not you, and you can't make that call.

So ... going against the word of your alleged savior . .. doubleplus
ungood .. .

> Alen

[elizabeth]

On Apr 28, 12:06 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> Devils Advocaat,news:7ba9bc81-30ba-4981...@o9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com

What is an undead person called?

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:34:49 +0400, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>
wrote:

>Jeanne Douglas, news:hlwdjsd2-09E1AE...@news.giganews.com
>> In article <klim3o$ke1$1...@os.motzarella.org>, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>
>> wrote:
>
>>>>> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>>>>>

>>>>> Nice slide show.
>>>>>
>>>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
>>>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>>>

>>> That's not correct.
>>
>> Of course it is. It is fact.
>
>You'll be unable to prove.

Are you posting from somewhere other than the U.S.? Under U.S. law, a
"baby" is a legal person, and a legal person is someone who has been
born. What is aborted is a fetus, not a baby.

Some exceptions apply in the third trimester of pregnancy, but these
are usually countered by the physical condition of the fetus in the
rare third trimester abortions.

Anti-abortionists deliberately confuse "alive" and other biological
conditions with "personhood" and other legal ones for propagandistic
reasons. If you have bought into their propaganda, that is your
problem.

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:13:24 +0400, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>
wrote:

>Devils Advocaat,
>news:e760f6db-59cd-44a1...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com

>> On 28 Apr, 09:22, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>>> W.T.S., news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net
>

>>>>> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>>>
>>>>> Nice slide show.
>>>
>>>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
>>>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>>>
>>> That's not correct.
>>

>> Do you call a teenager an adult?
>
>A teenager is not alive?

A confusion of biological distinctions with legal ones. As I
mentioned earlier: Anti-abortionists deliberately confuse "alive" and

[linuxgal]

elizabeth wrote:
>
> When men get pregnant, abortion is their business.
>

When they start getting pregnant, they will make abortion a sacrament.


--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:53:54 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

And the normal way is so _nice_, too!

[Jason]

In article <klj4kg$nc7$1...@os.motzarella.org>, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>
wrote:

> skye...@yahoo.com,
> news:5ef87cc7-0912-4d7c...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com

> > On Apr 27, 1:55 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>
> >> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
> >>
> >> Nice slide show.
> >
> > Life is an ongoing process that began 4.7 mya on Earth.
> >
> > If you're talking about abortion,
>

> No, not primarily.

>
> > the question of when
> > "life" begins isn't germane to anything. The salient
> > question is "When is the nervous system hooked fully up,
> > when can the fetus attain consciousness and live on its
> > own, with care, outside of the mother's body?" Before
> > the fetus can attain consciousness, it can't be said to
> > be a "person."
>

> As we already have found, your initial feeble idea
> that the consciousness takes place along with the
> first breath was wrong.
>

> Other farfetched theories are unscientific as well.
>

> > And under the United States Constitution,
> > you have to be *born* in order to be a person.
>

> Irrelevant.

>
> > Why don't you go find yourself a nice hobby, Oleg, and
> > stay the hell out of women's personal business?
>

> That would be sexism and chauvinism to claim the
> subject to be women's business, such uncivilized
> obscurantism does look not good.
>

> > --
> > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> > BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> > skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> > skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
> > --

Life begins at conception. It's a medical fact. However, don't try to
convince an advocate for abortion that life begins at conception. Many of
them believe that life begins at birth.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1n...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <klhdp4$osm$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> >>
> >> http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
> >>
> >> Nice slide show.
>
> >Life begins at birth.
>
> For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already. Heeheehee.
>

� when does the soul arrive?

[Oleg Smirnov]

SkyEyes,
news:d3ddd493-25d6-4247...@aw7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com

> On Apr 28, 5:32 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:

>>> the question of when
>>> "life" begins isn't germane to anything. The salient
>>> question is "When is the nervous system hooked fully up,
>>> when can the fetus attain consciousness and live on its
>>> own, with care, outside of the mother's body?" Before
>>> the fetus can attain consciousness, it can't be said to
>>> be a "person."
>>
>> As we already have found, your initial feeble idea
>> that the consciousness takes place along with the
>> first breath was wrong.
>
> Google it, dumbass.

<http://tinyurl.com/cnqr2rq>

Ы

> Around the time of natural birth, a
> protein is manufactured that allows the fetal brain to
> begin the process of consciousness.

It's quite common for ignorant amateur scientists who are far
from real science: you read something, do not understand it
properly, and then jump to conclusions and call names.

<http://tinyurl.com/cr2wkku>

"Natural birth — but not C-section — triggers brain boosting
proteins / Vaginal birth triggers the expression of a protein
in the brains of newborns that improves brain development .."

<http://tinyurl.com/brywz3j>

"A team of researchers .. has found that natural birth, not
delivery by Caesarian section (C-section), stimulates production
of a protein important for brain development."

This is about advantage of natural birth over C-section.

By your feeble logics those who were born through C-section
will never develop because 'protein that allows the fetal brain
to begin the process of consciousness' is not manufactured.

Big shame for you, Brenda.

>> Other farfetched theories are unscientific as well.

>> That would be sexism and chauvinism to claim the
>> subject to be women's business, such uncivilized
>> obscurantism does look not good.
>
> Then I'm a sexist and a chauvinist, because childbearing
> (or not) *is* women's business. Unless a particular woman
> wants to include her partner - entirely her choice - any
> given pregnancy is nobody's business but *hers*. And if
> you thing that "does look not good," I DON'T CARE. As long
> as women bear 100% of the physical risk of pregnancy, that's
> going to be how it is, and there's not one damn thing you
> can do about it.

If you 'DON'T CARE' then you should be ready that some others
will also not care about your cares; the civilized way is to
try to find a balance of.

[Oleg Smirnov]

casey, news:3ac69265-92f2-477b...@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

> On Apr 29, 5:06 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:

>>> Your mind comes
>>> on line when the cells that specialize as neurons
>>> start doing "mind". What we call "being alive" is
>>> the brain doing mind. A brain dead person is no
>>> longer alive in that sense.
>>
>> Does it mean the brain is dead before birth?
>
> Brain death means that the neurons themselves have
> died and there is no longer any hope of the patient
> waking up. A yet to be born baby is not brain dead.
> I don't know if the baby is awoken at birth from a sleep.
> You might have to google for that question.

I did, and posted some link, in my previous raid here.

>> Does it toggle to 'alive mode' right at birth?
>
> I consider dreaming being alive in the conscious
> sense so does a baby dream? Does the baby
> have any kind of subjective experience before it
> is born? At a guess I would say it does but that
> is something I don't know for sure.

I suspect that's not only you who doesn't know for sure.

Me myself too.

[Jason]

In article <klk4t0$lds$2...@os.motzarella.org>, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>
wrote:

I have heard stories about parents playing a certain children's song with
the headphones near her fetus. Later, after the baby was born, the baby
would stop crying or "settle down" whenever the mother played that same
song. The parents were convinced it happened that way since they played
the same song to that baby when the baby was a fetus.

I know that is not concrete evidence but most of us have heard those kinds
of stories. Google "fetal memory" for more information. Read this:

<http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/hepper1/>

[Devils Advocaat]

On 28 Apr, 20:06, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> Devils Advocaat,news:7ba9bc81-30ba-4981...@o9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com

Why do you need to think about it?

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 00:55:45 +0400, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> Nice slide show.

An embryo is alive. So's a red blood cell. But is it _a life_.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <klj4p1$o1g$1...@os.motzarella.org>,

"Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:

> Jeanne Douglas, news:hlwdjsd2-09E1AE...@news.giganews.com
> > In article <klim3o$ke1$1...@os.motzarella.org>, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>

> > wrote:
>
> >>>> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
> >>>>
> >>>> Nice slide show.
> >>>>

> >>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> >>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
> >>
> >> That's not correct.
> >

> > Of course it is. It is fact.
>
> You'll be unable to prove.

Since a fetus has not been born, it's not a baby. By definition.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <kljqeu$hq3$1...@os.motzarella.org>,

What "easy slogans"?

> And this is
> in combination with declared atheistic agenda.

What "atheistic agenda" are you talking about?

[casey]

On Apr 29, 7:25 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1nf2jpeht2vr6tcb...@4ax.com>, duke
>
> <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...

>
> > >>http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
>
> > >> Nice slide show.
>
> > >Life begins at birth.
>
> > For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already.  Heeheehee.
>
>  when does the soul arrive?

And does it split into two with twins?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <Jason-28041...@66.53.222.254>,

Of course it is not.

> However, don't try to
> convince an advocate for abortion that life begins at conception.

What's an "advocate for abortion"?

> Many of
> them believe that life begins at birth.

Exactly.

[Patrick]

I already answered that once.
Only one of the twins gets the soul.
The other one is referred to as the "evil" twin.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:28:03 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>

wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:07:29 -0700 (PDT), casey
><jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 29, 7:25 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
>>> In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1nf2jpeht2vr6tcb...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>
>>> <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > >In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
>>>
>>> > >>http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
>>>
>>> > >> Nice slide show.
>>>
>>> > >Life begins at birth.
>>>
>>> > For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already.  Heeheehee.
>>>
>>>  when does the soul arrive?
>>
>>And does it split into two with twins?
>
>I already answered that once.
>Only one of the twins gets the soul.
>The other one is referred to as the "evil" twin.

Just out of curiosity, is this RC doctrine/dogma, or is this your
opinion?

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[�RLMeasures]

In article
<74a5e3a8-346b-442b...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, casey
<jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On Apr 29, 7:25=A0am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1nf2jpeht2vr6tcb...@4ax.com>, duke
> >
> > <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> > > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote=

> :
> >
> > > >In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> >
> > > >>http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
> >
> > > >> Nice slide show.
> >
> > > >Life begins at birth.
> >

> > > For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already. =A0Heeheehee.
> >
> > =A0when does the soul arrive?

>
> And does it split into two with twins?

�*** only with identical twins.

[casey]

On Apr 29, 12:15 pm, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article

> <74a5e3a8-346b-442b-8308-467b1a124...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, casey

Yes I thought of that just after I hit [send] and decided
the reader would know what I meant.

[Jason]

In article
<74a5e3a8-346b-442b...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, casey

<jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On Apr 29, 7:25=A0am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1nf2jpeht2vr6tcb...@4ax.com>, duke
> >
> > <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> > > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote=

> :
> >
> > > >In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> >
> > > >>http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
> >
> > > >> Nice slide show.
> >
> > > >Life begins at birth.
> >

> > > For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already. =A0Heeheehee.
> >
> > =A0when does the soul arrive?

>
> And does it split into two with twins?

No, every person has their own soul and it is NEVER split.

[Jason]

In article <klk8ih$682$1...@dont-email.me>, Malcolm McMahon

But one is an alive embryo and the other one is a alive red blood cell.

The embryo is a life unless it is aborted.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 29 Apr, 04:50, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <klk8ih$68...@dont-email.me>, Malcolm McMahon

>
> <malc...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 00:55:45 +0400, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>
> > >http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> > > Nice slide show.
>
> > An embryo is alive. So's a red blood cell. But is it _a life_.
>
> But one is an alive embryo and the other one is a alive red blood cell.
>
> The embryo is a life unless it is aborted.

Did you know many more embryos die without being aborted?

[casey]

On Apr 29, 1:46 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article

> <74a5e3a8-346b-442b-8308-467b1a124...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, casey

So if we clone a human your god will zip down and
insert a new soul in the clone as he must in the case
of identical twins.

[Jason]

In article
<d1f99151-e344-4734...@ot10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On Apr 29, 1:46=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <74a5e3a8-346b-442b-8308-467b1a124...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, casey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> > > On Apr 29, 7:25=3DA0am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > > > In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1nf2jpeht2vr6tcb...@4ax.com>, duke
> >
> > > > <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> > > > > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> w=
> rote=3D

> > > :
> >
> > > > > >In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> >

> > > > > >>http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propagan=

> da/
> >
> > > > > >> Nice slide show.
> >
> > > > > >Life begins at birth.
> >

> > > > > For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already. =3DA0Heehee=
> hee.
> >
> > > > =3DA0when does the soul arrive?

> >
> > > And does it split into two with twins?
> >
> > No, every person has their own soul and it is NEVER split.
>
> So if we clone a human your god will zip down and
> insert a new soul in the clone as he must in the case
> of identical twins.

Yes--every person that is alive has a soul.

It's my understanding that clones have to be born just like regular
babies. It's my guess that God provides each embryo with a soul.

[Jason]

In article
<7bd45326-bf14-446e...@m4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Devils

Yes

[Oleg Smirnov]

Jeanne Douglas, news:hlwdjsd2-60CA5D...@news.giganews.com
> In article klj4p1$o1g$1...@os.motzarella.org, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>

>>>>>> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice slide show.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
>>>>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>>>>
>>>> That's not correct.
>>>
>>> Of course it is. It is fact.
>>
>> You'll be unable to prove.
>
> Since a fetus has not been born, it's not a baby.

That's not about 'when does life begin'.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Apr 29, 5:51 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article

> <7bd45326-bf14-446e-ae35-ef0c90670...@m4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Devils

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 29 Apr, 04:50, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > In article <klk8ih$68...@dont-email.me>, Malcolm McMahon
>
> > > <malc...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 00:55:45 +0400, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> > > > > Nice slide show.
>
> > > > An embryo is alive. So's a red blood cell. But is it _a life_.
>
> > > But one is an alive embryo and the other one is a alive red blood cell.
>
> > > The embryo is a life unless it is aborted.
>
> > Did you know many more embryos die without being aborted?
>
> Yes

So why aren't prolifers devoting time and energy to supporting
research that would save those embryos?

[Dakota]

They obviously prefer to self-righteously hold up signs and
inconvenience woman than do anything to support "atheistic" science.

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 28, 2:41 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> casey,news:3ac69265-92f2-477b...@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

>
> > On Apr 29, 5:06 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> >>> Your mind comes
> >>> on line when the cells that specialize as neurons
> >>> start doing "mind". What we call "being alive" is
> >>> the brain doing mind. A brain dead person is no
> >>> longer alive in that sense.
>
> >> Does it mean the brain is dead before birth?
>
> > Brain death means that the neurons themselves have
> > died and there is no longer any hope of the patient
> > waking up. A yet to be born baby is not brain dead.
> > I don't know if the baby is awoken at birth from a sleep.
> > You might have to google for that question.
>
> I did, and posted some link, in my previous raid here.
>
> >> Does it toggle to 'alive mode' right at birth?
>
> > I consider dreaming being alive in the conscious
> > sense so does a baby dream?

No, unborn or otherwise, babies don't dream. Dreams and the brain
processing the days' events. Babies have very few events to process,
and feti had *none*. If a fetus was capable of dreaming, the
literature would be full of references to it, and it's just *not*.

> Does the baby
> > have any kind of subjective experience before it
> > is born? At a guess I would say it does but that
> > is something I don't know for sure.

Probably the first subjective experience a baby has is its birth,
since, once again, it can't achieve consciousness until shortly before
natural birth, when a certain protein is made that facilitates the
attainment of consciousness. The protein continues working after
birth, enabling the child to stay awake for longer and longer periods
and to attain states more reliably recognized as being
"consciousness."

--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
--
>

[casey]

On Apr 29, 2:51 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> [...]

> Yes--every person that is alive has a soul.

And what does this soul do and apart from your
belief this thing exists what is the evidence each
person has a soul inside them? You know the
kind of evidence we use to show that we have
a brain between our ears. What does this soul
look like and what is its function?

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 28, 2:41 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:

> SkyEyes,news:d3ddd493-25d6-4247...@aw7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com

Then the protein develops *after* birth. It may take a hop, skip and
jump to get it started, since the birth process didn't get it going,
but it develops nonetheless.

>
> Big shame for you, Brenda.

I hardly think so.

>
> >> Other farfetched theories are unscientific as well.
> >> That would be sexism and chauvinism to claim the
> >> subject to be women's business, such uncivilized
> >> obscurantism does look not good.
>
> > Then I'm a sexist and a chauvinist, because childbearing
> > (or not) *is* women's business.  Unless a particular woman
> > wants to include her partner - entirely her choice - any
> > given pregnancy is nobody's business but *hers*.  And if
> > you thing that "does look not good," I DON'T CARE.  As long
> > as women bear 100% of the physical risk of pregnancy, that's
> > going to be how it is, and there's not one damn thing you
> > can do about it.
>
> If you 'DON'T CARE' then you should be ready that some others
> will also not care about your cares; the civilized way is to
> try to find a balance of.

And I'm fully aware that many people are not going to care about the
same things I care about. You talk to me as though I haven't lived on
this earth for 63 years and seen a thing or two in my time. You care
about what you want to care about, and I'll care about what's
important to me, but I'm not going to give an inch on the fact that
childbearing is WOMEN'S BUSINESS that men should not voice opinions
about, unless a woman specifically asks her partner's opinion about a
pregnancy she got from relations with him. Every time we let
uninvolved men have their say, they end up voting out our abortion
rights from the State government, and trying to remove them completely
from the national government. Sometimes these men succeed, like
Ecuadore, where right now there is a woman who has a pregnancy that's
killing her, and a non-viable fetus that's not going to live
*anyway*. But the country's policy is "no abortion ever for any
reason," so they're going to allow this poor woman to die rather than
mercifully give her an abortion and remove a fetus that's dying
anyway. The feeling is that she had sex, so the punishment in her
case is death. They'd rather have two deaths than one, because hey,
she deserves it, since she had sex.

And *THAT* is why men shouldn't be allowed to have opinions about
women's reproduction.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-28041...@67-150-124-170.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

It is NOT a life.

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 28, 2:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <klj4kg$nc...@os.motzarella.org>, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > skyey...@yahoo.com,
> >news:5ef87cc7-0912-4d7c...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com

> > > On Apr 27, 1:55 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>
> > >>http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183
>
> > >> Nice slide show.
>

> > > Life is an ongoing process that began 4.7 mya on Earth.
>
> > > If you're talking about abortion,
>
> > No, not primarily.
>

> > > the question of when
> > > "life" begins isn't germane to anything.  The salient
> > > question is "When is the nervous system hooked fully up,
> > > when can the fetus attain consciousness and live on its
> > > own, with care, outside of the mother's body?"  Before
> > > the fetus can attain consciousness, it can't be said to
> > > be a "person."
>
> > As we already have found, your initial feeble idea
> > that the consciousness takes place along with the
> > first breath was wrong.
>

> > Other farfetched theories are unscientific as well.
>

> > > And under the United States Constitution,
> > > you have to be *born* in order to be a person.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> > > Why don't you go find yourself a nice hobby, Oleg, and
> > > stay the hell out of women's personal business?
>

> > That would be sexism and chauvinism to claim the
> > subject to be women's business, such uncivilized
> > obscurantism does look not good.
>

> > > --
> > > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> > > BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> > > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> > > skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> > > skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
> > > --
>

> Life begins at conception. It's a medical fact.

No, it isn't. The components that meet and make up a pregnancy, egg
and sperm, are already alive, and are the latest products of a process
that goes back 4.7 billion years. When they combine they're already
alive; but they take on a different process at that point.

However, don't try to

> convince an advocate for abortion that life begins at conception. Many of

> them believe that life begins at birth.

Legally speaking, in the U.S. life *does* begin at birth, according to
the Constitution. It defines citizens as people *already born*.
Therefore, you're not a citizen before you are born, not a person, and
no rights accrue to you until you pop out of that birth canal.

And at any rate, it's not a question of whether or not the fetus is
alive - of *course* it's alive - it's just not a person yet. It has
no rights - and certainly none that trump the mother's rights - until
it's born and, with care, can live outside the mother's body.

As a grown-up woman who is protective of my rights, I get a little
pissy when somebody proposes that a mass of jelly the size of your
thumbnail - but without consciousness or sentience, nor even any means
of perceiving pain - is said to have more rights to my body than I do.

And I *do* feel for the babies of the women forced against their will
to give birth. There are things way, *waaaaaaaaay* worse than merely
not existing. Until you rightards realize that, you're going to
continue to ruin the lives of women *and* children who are not wanted.

[W.T.S.]

In article <kljdpm$8ai$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> Syd M., news:41697b59-2b8a-41a1...@i2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
> > On Apr 28, 4:22 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>
> >>>> http://www.Lie.biz/

> >>
> >>>> Nice slide show.
> >>
> >>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> >>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
> >>
> >> That's not correct.
> >

> > No, you are wrong.
>
> I still think I'm right.
No, you've been listening to pro-liars and forced-birthers too much.
>
> We don't see anywhere in the nature such
> a phenomenon that something was not alive
> and then it would toggle to be alive.
A fetus is nothing more than a hangnail. They need removal. Stop being
a liar and tell the truth, life begins only at birth.
>
> > PDW

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
>
http://tinyurl.com/anghyfr
>
http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x
>
http://tinyurl.com/b29z62n
>

[W.T.S.]

In article <b22b5571-fb25-4e58-9d6d-ed69e8cf1d93
@v4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
> On Apr 28, 11:07 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> > Syd M.,news:41697b59-2b8a-41a1...@i2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com

> >
> > > On Apr 28, 4:22 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:

> > >>>>http://www.Pro-Liar.biz

> >
> > >>>> Nice slide show.
> >
> > >>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> > >>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
> >
> > >> That's not correct.
> >
> > > No, you are wrong.
> >
> > I still think I'm right.
>

> You're not, I know for a fact it's not a baby until birth.

>
> > We don't see anywhere in the nature such
> > a phenomenon that something was not alive
> > and then it would toggle to be alive.

Do you mean to say a clump of cells too small, cells with no life of
their own, no consciousness, is a "baby". You've been following the
rants of pro-liar loons far too long. Sober up and get real! Start by
following the links below.

[W.T.S.]

In article <klj4p1$o1g$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> Jeanne Douglas, news:hlwdjsd2-09E1AE...@news.giganews.com
> > In article <klim3o$ke1$1...@os.motzarella.org>, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>
> > wrote:
>
> >>>> http://www.Forced-Birther.biz/

> >>>>
> >>>> Nice slide show.
> >>>>
> >>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> >>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
> >>
> >> That's not correct.
> >

> > Of course it is. It is fact.
>
> You'll be unable to prove.
> >

> > JD
> >
> > "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph
> > Biden

To get the facts, follow the links below:

[W.T.S.]

In article <96514f05-c108-4e70-80f7-
6f7f55...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
> On Apr 28, 8:34 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> > Jeanne Douglas,news:hlwdjsd2-09E1AE...@news.giganews.com
> >
> > > In article <klim3o$ke...@os.motzarella.org>, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>
> > > wrote:
> > >>>>http://www.Pro-Lying.biz/

> >
> > >>>> Nice slide show.
> >
> > >>> Life begins at birth.  It doesn't begin at conception,
> > >>> ever.  No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
> >
> > >> That's not correct.
> >
> > > Of course it is. It is fact.
> >
> > You'll be unable to prove.
>

> And you are _wrong_. But you have to say that, otherwise you can't
> justify your opinions or position.

>
> > > JD
> >
> > > "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph
> > > Biden

To learn the truth about abortion, follow the links below:

[W.T.S.]

In article <2d84f576-e9ff-4539-9922-7518d5206308
@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
> On Apr 28, 4:22 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> > W.T.S.,news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net

> >
> > > In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...

> > >>http://www.Forced-Birthing.biz/

> >
> > >> Nice slide show.
> >
> > > Life begins at birth.  It doesn't begin at conception,
> > > ever.  No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
> >

> > That's _correct_.
>
> You are talking to a troll, "Robert H" is nothing more than a troll.
> And, W.T.S. is right, life can only begin at birth, never conception.
For the truth about abortion, follow the links below:

[W.T.S.]

In article <kljqev$hq3$2...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> Robert H,
> news:2d84f576-e9ff-4539...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com

> > On Apr 28, 4:22 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> >> W.T.S., news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net
>

> >>>> http://www.Pro-Lies.biz/

> >>
> >>>> Nice slide show.
> >>
> >>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> >>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
> >>

> >> That's correct.

> >
> > You are talking to a troll, "Robert H" is nothing more than a
> > troll.
>

> Oh I have noticed it. And, I can see now, fater reading the links
> below, life only begins at birth.
Thanks! The links below will give you the real facts:

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Sunday, 28 April 2013 09:22:26 UTC+1, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> W.T.S., news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net
>
> > In article <klhdp4$osm$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
>
>
>
> >> http://www.mccl.org/Page.aspx?pid=381&srcid=183

>
> >>
>
> >> Nice slide show.
>
> >>
>
> > Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
>
> > ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
>
>
>

> That's not correct.

This "oh yes it does" "oh no it doesn't" argument is completely futile because what you're arguing about is not facts, but the definition of a word.

Nature isn't organised for the convenience of ethical calculus. What we might like to think of as events are, in reality, processes. The creation of a new human life, like the death of an old one, is a process. There's no one instant before which no human existed and after which one does. Not birth, not conception, not the appearance of the neural tube, not the first heartbeat.

The logical consequence of this is that we should place an _increasing_ moral value on the embryo as it develops. And, in current legal practice, that's pretty much what we do. We require a higher standard of justification for late abortion than early. In my opinion that is the correct approach.

[W.T.S.]

In article <klk4sv$lds$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> SkyEyes,
> news:d3ddd493-25d6-4247...@aw7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com

> > On Apr 28, 5:32 am, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>
> >>> the question of when
> >>> "life" begins isn't germane to anything. The salient
> >>> question is "When is the nervous system hooked fully up,
> >>> when can the fetus attain consciousness and live on its
> >>> own, with care, outside of the mother's body?" Before
> >>> the fetus can attain consciousness, it can't be said to
> >>> be a "person."
> >>

> This is true. But, we pro-liars feel women should be gender slaves
> and brood sows, and we won't let facts or the truth stand in our way.

> >
> > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> > BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> > skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> > skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
> >

For the truth about abortion, follow the links below:

[W.T.S.]

In article <klj4kg$nc7$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> skye...@yahoo.com,
> news:5ef87cc7-0912-4d7c...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com

> > On Apr 27, 1:55 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>
> >> http://www.Forced-Birther.biz/
> >>
> >> Nice slide show.
> >

> > Life is an ongoing process that began 4.7 mya on Earth.
> >
> > If you're talking about abortion,
>
> No, not primarily.
>

> > the question of when
> > "life" begins isn't germane to anything. The salient
> > question is "When is the nervous system hooked fully up,
> > when can the fetus attain consciousness and live on its
> > own, with care, outside of the mother's body?" Before
> > the fetus can attain consciousness, it can't be said to
> > be a "person."
>

> As we already have found, your initial idea

> that the consciousness takes place along with the

> first breath was right.
>
> The far fetched theories of pro-liars and forced-birthers are
> unscientific as well. The simple fact is that life only begins at
> birth, never at conception.

>
> > And under the United States Constitution,
> > you have to be *born* in order to be a person.
>

> Good point. The same is true in the medical and scientific world.

>
> > Why don't you go find yourself a nice hobby, Oleg, and
> > stay the hell out of women's personal business?
>

> Yes, it's between a woman and her Doctor. Only a forced-birther or a
> pro-liar sticks his or her nose in private business.

>
> > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> > BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> > skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> > skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
>

To learn the truth about life and abortion, follow the links below:

[W.T.S.]

In article <Jason-28041...@66.53.222.254>, Ja...@nospam.com
says...
> In article <klj4kg$nc7$1...@os.motzarella.org>, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>
> wrote:
>
> Life begins only at birth. It's a medical fact. However, don't try to
> convince an pro-liar or forced-birther that life begins at birth. They
> actually believe that life begins at birth, but turning women into
> brood sows and gender slaves is much more important to them than women
> being able to control their own bodies and lives.
Good point. To learn the truth, follow the links below:

[W.T.S.]

In article <kljajq$mqo$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> Devils Advocaat,
> news:e760f6db-59cd-44a1...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com

> > On 28 Apr, 09:22, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> >> W.T.S., news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net
>

> >>>> http://www.Forced-Birthing.biz/

> >>
> >>>> Nice slide show.
> >>
> >>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> >>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
> >>

> >> That's correct. But, we forced birthers and pro-liars have a more
> >> important agenda, turning women into brood sows and gender slaves.
> >> As such, we'll continue to lie all we wish. Women's bodies and
> >> freedom means nothing to us, and they never will.

[W.T.S.]

In article <c2fqn8h7m9ffjp85d...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:22:26 +0400, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>
> >W.T.S., news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net

> >> In article <klhdp4$osm$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> >

> >>> http://www.Forced-Birther.biz/

> >>>
> >>> Nice slide show.
> >>>
> >> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> >> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
> >
> >That's correct.
>

> Right. Life begins at birth. Until then, it's just a clump of cells
> with no independant life or consciousness. You need a microscope to
> see the fetus most of the time. To assert that this is a "baby"
> show's just how stupid pro-liars and forced-birthers have become.
> They are willing to destroy a woman's future, even kill her to advance
> their sick agender of brood sow status and gender slavery for women.
> I now realize that the fetus is nothing more than a hangnail waiting
> to be trimmed for the good of the woman's health and safety. I now
> realize it is a disgrace to be Catholic! I now realize that "God" is
> nothing more than the Pope's sock puppet. I wish I had the strength
> and courage to spit into the face of Catholicism and walk away.
Keep working on it, "duke", you're getting there.
>
> The dukester, Ashamed to be Catholic.
> ********************************************
> Denounce Catholicism!
> You simply can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************

[W.T.S.]

In article <kljrro$q43$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> casey, news:1f86e480-20fc-4069...@lr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

> > On Apr 29, 1:12 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:22:26 +0400, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> >>> W.T.S., news:MPG.2be67b3b7...@news.west.earthlink.net
>

> >>>> Life begins at birth. It doesn't begin at conception,
> >>>> ever. No baby is ever involved in any abortion.
> >>

> >>> That's not correct.
> >>
> >> Right. Life begins when the first cell splits, or
> >> before. Dead cells don't divide.
> >
> > The first cell is alive before it splits, not when it
> > splits.
> >
> > It is not an individual human life however unless you
> > want to say every cell in your body is an individual
> > human life. You are a colony of cells not a single
> > cell. A single human cell is no more a human than
> > a single pixel is a picture. That first cell has the
> > potential to grow more than one colony of cells we
> > call humans. (Identical twins).
>
> That's about right.

>
> > Your mind comes
> > on line when the cells that specialize as neurons
> > start doing "mind". What we call "being alive" is
> > the brain doing mind. A brain dead person is no
> > longer alive in that sense.
>
> Does it mean the brain is dead before birth?

It means it's just a nonfuctioning clump of cells.

>
> Does it toggle to 'alive mode' right at birth?

Yes, that's how life works. Go to medical school.

[W.T.S.]

In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1n...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <klhdp4$osm$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> >>

> >> http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/

> >>
> >> Nice slide show.
>
> >Life begins at birth.
>

> For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already. HeeHawHeeHaw.
Like the cells of a hangnail? The fetus, like the hangnail, needs to be
removed and thrown away. A woman's life and future are far more
important than the contents of a test tube!
>
> The pukester, CatholiKKK Stool.
> ********************************************
> Renounce Catholicism!

> You simply can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************

Learn the truth, follow the links below:

[W.T.S.]

In article <r-2804131...@10.0.1.3>, r...@somis.org says...
>
> In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1n...@4ax.com>, duke

> <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <klhdp4$osm$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> > >>
> > >> http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
> > >>
> > >> Nice slide show.
> >
> > >Life begins at birth.
> >
> > For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already.

> > HeeHawHeeHawHeeHawHeeHaw.
> >
> • when does the soul arrive?
Good point! The soul is just an invention of the Catholic Church.
Souls just don't exist. Life only begins at birth, never conception.

[W.T.S.]

In article <Jason-28041...@67-150-124-170.lsan.mdsg-
pacwest.com>, Ja...@nospam.com says...
> In article
> <74a5e3a8-346b-442b...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, casey
> <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 29, 7:25=A0am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > > In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1nf2jpeht2vr6tcb...@4ax.com>, duke
> > >

> > > <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S."
> > >

> > > > >In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...

> > >
> > > > >>http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
> > >
> > > > >> Nice slide show.
> > >
> > > > >Life begins at birth.
> > >

> > > > For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already. =A0Heeheehee.
> > >
> > > =A0when does the soul arrive?

> >
> > And does it split into two with twins?
>
> No, every person has their own soul and it is NEVER split.

Typical. The Church invents the non-existant "soul" to justify it's
anti-choice stand.

[W.T.S.]

In article <Jason-28041...@67-150-124-170.lsan.mdsg-
pacwest.com>, Ja...@nospam.com says...
> In article

> <d1f99151-e344-4734...@ot10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 29, 1:46=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > In article

> > > <74a5e3a8-346b-442b-8308-467b1a124...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, casey
> > >
> > > <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> > > > On Apr 29, 7:25=3DA0am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > > > > In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1nf2jpeht2vr6tcb...@4ax.com>, duke
> > >
> > > > > <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> > > > > > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> w=
> > rote=3D
> > > > :

> > >
> > > > > > >In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
> > >

> > > > > > >>http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propagan=

> > da/
> > >
> > > > > > >> Nice slide show.
> > >
> > > > > > >Life begins at birth.
> > >

> > > > > > For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already. =3DA0Heehee=
> > hee.
> > >
> > > > > =3DA0when does the soul arrive?

> > >
> > > > And does it split into two with twins?
> > >
> > > No, every person has their own soul and it is NEVER split.
> >

> > So if we clone a human your god will zip down and
> > insert a new soul in the clone as he must in the case
> > of identical twins.

>
> Yes--every person that is alive has a soul.
>

> It's my understanding that clones have to be born just like regular
> babies. It's my guess that God provides each embryo with a soul.
The "soul" is a lie, "God" is a lie. Get used to it. If you continue
to believe those lies, you'll never be free.

Learn the truth, follow the links below:

[W.T.S.]

In article <7bd45326-bf14-446e-ae35-ef0c90670e36
@m4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, manky...@gmail.com says...

>
> On 29 Apr, 04:50, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article <klk8ih$68...@dont-email.me>, Malcolm McMahon
> >

> > <malc...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 00:55:45 +0400, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> >

> > > >http://www.Pro-Liars.biz/

> >
> > > > Nice slide show.
> >
> > > An embryo is alive. So's a red blood cell. But is it _a life_.
> >
> > But one is an alive embryo and the other one is a alive red blood cell.
> >
> > The embryo is a life unless it is aborted.
>

> Did you know many more embryos die without being aborted?

Good point. Mother Nature and "God" are the biggest abortionists
around! Learn more, follow the links below:

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Monday, 29 April 2013 05:51:20 UTC+1, Jason wrote:
> In article
>
> <d1f99151-e344-4734...@ot10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>

> > On Apr 29, 1:46=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > In article
>

> > > <74a5e3a8-346b-442b-8308-467b1a124...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, casey
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 29, 7:25=3DA0am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> > > > > In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1nf2jpeht2vr6tcb...@4ax.com>, duke
>
> > >
>
> > > > > <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> w=
>
> > rote=3D
>
> > > > :
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > >In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > >>http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propagan=
>
> > da/
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > >> Nice slide show.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > >Life begins at birth.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already. =3DA0Heehee=
>
> > hee.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > =3DA0when does the soul arrive?
>
> > >
>
> > > > And does it split into two with twins?
>
> > >
>
> > > No, every person has their own soul and it is NEVER split.
>
> >
>
> > So if we clone a human your god will zip down and
>
> > insert a new soul in the clone as he must in the case
>
> > of identical twins.
>
>
>
> Yes--every person that is alive has a soul.
>
>
>
> It's my understanding that clones have to be born just like regular
>
> babies. It's my guess that God provides each embryo with a soul.

So, your God being omniscient, why would It provide a soul for an embryo which is going to be aborted?

[casey]

On Apr 29, 10:28 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:07:29 -0700 (PDT), casey
>
>
>
>
>
> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> >On Apr 29, 7:25 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1nf2jpeht2vr6tcb...@4ax.com>, duke
>
> >> <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> >> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> > >In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
>

> >> > >>http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/

>
> >> > >> Nice slide show.
>
> >> > >Life begins at birth.
>

> >> > For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already.  Heeheehee.

>
> >>  when does the soul arrive?
>
> >And does it split into two with twins?
>

> I already answered that once.
> Only one of the twins gets the soul.
> The other one is referred to as the "evil" twin.

That is your delusion and a scary one at that.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Oh the atheistic monkey seems to be really raging.

W.T.S., news:MPG.2be7f2eff...@news.west.earthlink.net

> In article <kljrro$q43$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is my 'domain', btw.

> says...

[Oleg Smirnov]

SkyEyes,
news:0e982581-6eed-40ed...@af5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com

:-)

That is great science, really.

>> Big shame for you, Brenda.
>
> I hardly think so.

It's a kind of happiness when God has not supplied
you with enough consciousness to feel the shame,
you should thank Him.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Malcolm McMahon, news:ee7bc1e3-f755-4ff8...@googlegroups.com

I'm not against moderate and balanced approach,
as you might notice, my objections were related
to oversimplified and vulgar absolutizations
(these vulgarities themselves constitute a kind
of primitive cult).

[Oleg Smirnov]

casey, news:26780a5e-6aa8-428e...@dg5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com
> On Apr 29, 2:51 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> [...]

>> Yes--every person that is alive has a soul.
>

> And what does this soul do and apart from your
> belief this thing exists what is the evidence each
> person has a soul inside them? You know the
> kind of evidence we use to show that we have
> a brain between our ears. What does this soul
> look like and what is its function?

If this suggests physical description then it contains an
internal contradiction, since what we are able to describe
physically is 'inanimate nature', by (implicit) definition.

We usually can well, somehow, determine (or 'feel') in
practice, is there a soul / consciousness / 'alive-ness'
somewhere, or not. But the problem is to provide a 'formal
description' of what this 'somehow' (ie. our 'feeling')
really is. As soon as it is formalized or algorithmized,
and predictable (maybe at least in a probabilistic sense)
then there is no 'alive soul' any more.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 28 Apr, 23:31, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 Apr, 20:06, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>
> > Devils Advocaat,news:7ba9bc81-30ba-4981...@o9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
>
> > > On 28 Apr, 17:04, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> > >> One do not need faulty analogies for proper reasoning.
>
> > > It is not a faulty analogy.
>
> > > Since you're reluctant to address it from that angle, let
> > > me ask you this.
>
> > > What is an unborn human called?
>
> > I'll be thinking about that.
>
> Why do you need to think about it?

Are you having trouble thinking about an answer to the very simple
question of "what is an unborn human called"?

[duke]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:25:00 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1n...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>

>> >In article <klhdp4$osm$1...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...
>> >>
>> >> http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
>> >>

>> >> Nice slide show.
>>
>> >Life begins at birth.
>>

>> For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already. Heeheehee.
>>
>• when does the soul arrive?

Conception, which precedes first cell split. God's got the situation under
control.


The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

[duke]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:15:01 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article

><74a5e3a8-346b-442b...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, casey
><jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 29, 7:25=A0am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
>> > In article <stmqn81im8r8ufo1nf2jpeht2vr6tcb...@4ax.com>, duke
>> >
>> > <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:18:38 -0500, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote=
>> :
>> >
>> > > >In article <klhdp4$os...@os.motzarella.org>, ve...@gde.ru says...

>> >
>> > > >>http://www.MotherFuckersAndLoons.biz/Lies/Disinformation/Propaganda/
>> >
>> > > >> Nice slide show.
>> >
>> > > >Life begins at birth.
>> >

>> > > For the first cell to split, it must be "life" already. =A0Heeheehee.
>> >
>> > =A0when does the soul arrive?

>>
>> And does it split into two with twins?
>

>�*** only with identical twins.

God gives it two souls before the split. God knows what he's doing.

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:53:45 -0700 (PDT), casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>On Apr 29, 2:51 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> [...]
>> Yes--every person that is alive has a soul.
>
>And what does this soul do and apart from your
>belief this thing exists what is the evidence each
>person has a soul inside them? You know the
>kind of evidence we use to show that we have
>a brain between our ears. What does this soul
>look like and what is its function?

Intelligent people know that a soul is not an organ.

[casey]

On Apr 29, 7:39 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> casey,news:26780a5e-6aa8-428e...@dg5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

>
> > On Apr 29, 2:51 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Yes--every person that is alive has a soul.
>
> > And what does this soul do and apart from your
> > belief this thing exists what is the evidence each
> > person has a soul inside them? You know the
> > kind of evidence we use to show that we have
> > a brain between our ears. What does this soul
> > look like and what is its function?
>
> If this suggests physical description then it contains an
> internal contradiction, since what we are able to describe
> physically is 'inanimate nature', by (implicit) definition.

Physical matter is not inanimate it moves and interacts.
The atoms that make up biological machines interact
and arrange themselves with physical forces just as
the physical force we call a magnetic field causes
magnets to align themselves.

> We usually can well, somehow, determine (or 'feel') in
> practice, is there a soul / consciousness / 'alive-ness'
> somewhere, or not. But the problem is to provide a 'formal
> description' of what this 'somehow' (ie. our 'feeling')
> really is. As soon as it is formalized or algorithmized,
> and predictable (maybe at least in a probabilistic sense)
> then there is no 'alive soul' any more.

Just because you don't know how a neural network can
do mind doesn't meant it can't or that there must be
some magic involved.

[Oleg Smirnov]

casey, news:e333f1b1-1a5c-4b16...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com

> On Apr 29, 7:39 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:

>>> And what does this soul do and apart from your
>>> belief this thing exists what is the evidence each
>>> person has a soul inside them? You know the
>>> kind of evidence we use to show that we have
>>> a brain between our ears. What does this soul
>>> look like and what is its function?
>>
>> If this suggests physical description then it contains an
>> internal contradiction, since what we are able to
>> describe physically is 'inanimate nature', by (implicit)
>> definition.
>
> Physical matter is not inanimate it moves and interacts.

Yes, the 'inanimate nature' is a figure of speech.

> The atoms that make up biological machines interact
> and arrange themselves with physical forces just as
> the physical force we call a magnetic field causes
> magnets to align themselves.
>
>> We usually can well, somehow, determine (or 'feel') in
>> practice, is there a soul / consciousness / 'alive-ness'
>> somewhere, or not. But the problem is to provide a
>> 'formal description' of what this 'somehow' (ie. our
>> 'feeling') really is. As soon as it is formalized or
>> algorithmized, and predictable (maybe at least in a
>> probabilistic sense) then there is no 'alive soul' any
>> more.
>
> Just because you don't know how a neural network can
> do mind doesn't meant it can't or that there must be
> some magic involved.

No, that's not about magic. That is an attempt to
reflect 'how it happens' without presuppositions and
secondary constructs (such as 'neural network') which
may include implicit premises. It does not contradict
the atoms / forces in any way.

[casey]

On Apr 29, 10:18 pm, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
> casey,news:e333f1b1-1a5c-4b16...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com

Then it is unclear to me what you are asking.
Your own subject experience correlates with your brain.
Reported subjective experiences are made by brains.
At the very least we know that brains do consciousness.
Exactly how that happens we don't know.
We have no evidence of anything else doing mind.