I prefer "womb ferret."

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Hi there ... I'm sorry but your video of twins fighting in the womb is a dupe of http://videosift.com/video/Twin-Tweaks. Since I posted it, I can't "call" it.

I misread the announcement. I thought it was saying that we would get power points recharged based on the number of years we were active, which I thought was great.

It doesn't say anything like that -- my reading comprehension skills suck these days.

I must admit that I am also way way bummed by this. Some of us are feral, acquisitive creatures who respond well to positive reinforcement and work hard as lab rats pushing the bar to get our pellets. Having my pellets taken away is a harsh blow.... @dag, before you bestow Sift of the Week Power Points, 'twould be best to check to see if they can actually be bestowed. To have one's gift be yanked back... oh, the pain, the pain!

I can see the logic, though. Too much power can accumulate in the hands of those who are on the site more than others. That can have a dampening effect on less involved Sifters, in a variety of ways.

Plus... revenue. You guys need to get paid for all your work.

I am already mourning my reduced wealth. Five power points. Ripped from my womb. Damn.

Amniotic fluid does not cause septicaemia.

An alive foetus does not cause septicaemia.

A dead foetus does not cause Escherichia coli - but it can eventually cause septicaemia if it were not delivered - usually this happens by spontaneous delivery from the mothers body aborting the pregnancy. As it was they immediately delivered the baby upon cessation of its heart beat.

The septicaemia was caused by Escherichia coli - specifically a new Extended-Spectrum Beta Lactamase strain that is highly resistant to antibiotics. This bacteria is contracted in the hospital environment. This bacteria did not originate from the foetus.

So to roughly answer your question, to remove the source of the septicaemia would be to remove the source of the Escherichia coli, which is the hospital. I can't say if she would have survived outside of the hospital or not, but she probably would not have contracted the Escherichia coli and she probably would have safely delivered through spontaneous abortion.

It's sad she died, but the medical reason for her death was not a lack of abortion. It was from contracting a new deadly bacteria strain that is found in hospitals and is very hard to treat. It was probably contracted directly from either a doctor, another patient, a medical instrument, or a surface she touched within the hospital. These new antibiotic resistant bateria are a major problem worldwide killing many otherwise healthy people every year.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

Here's a quote for you. The husband of the deceased:
“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.
“Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said, ‘As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything’.
“Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do.
“That evening she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting. She went to use the toilet and she collapsed. There were big alarms and a doctor took bloods and started her on antibiotics.
“The next morning I said she was so sick and asked again that they just end it, but they said they couldn’t.”
At lunchtime the foetal heart had stopped and Ms Halappanavar was brought to theatre to have the womb contents removed. “When she came out she was talking okay but she was very sick. That’s the last time I spoke to her.”
source - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/122432657520
3.html
The Irish Times
Now, do you think they should have removed the source of that septicaemia sooner?
(Bias declaration: I was within feet of the people pictured on the front of this video above)

Here's a quote for you. The husband of the deceased:

“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

“Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said, ‘As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything’.

“Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do.

“That evening she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting. She went to use the toilet and she collapsed. There were big alarms and a doctor took bloods and started her on antibiotics.

“The next morning I said she was so sick and asked again that they just end it, but they said they couldn’t.”

At lunchtime the foetal heart had stopped and Ms Halappanavar was brought to theatre to have the womb contents removed. “When she came out she was talking okay but she was very sick. That’s the last time I spoke to her.”

source - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html
The Irish Times

Now, do you think they should have removed the source of that septicaemia sooner?

(Bias declaration: I was within feet of the people pictured on the front of this video above)

>> ^harlequinn:

From the linked article "An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy two days later found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem” and E.coli ESBL."
The risk of septicaemia is the same whether the baby dies by itself or whether the baby is killed by Drs (i.e. an abortion) - in both cases the baby is born dead and it is the medical intervention itself that presents the risk for complications. This is well documented in medical literature.


She was screaming and vomiting in her hospital bed for three days>> ^harlequinn:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^harlequinn:
From the linked article "An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy two days later found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem” and E.coli ESBL."
The risk of septicaemia is the same whether the baby dies by itself or whether the baby is killed by Drs (i.e. an abortion) - in both cases the baby is born dead and it is the medical intervention itself that presents the risk for complications. This is well documented in medical literature.

You want to maybe post some of that literature? Because if not, you're just a fucking liar.

Not posting any literature doesn't make me a liar - it just makes you uninformed - sorry, "fucking uninformed".

I've heard this "nubula-as-nursery" metaphor since I was 5 years old going to the planetarium, and I don't like it. If anything, nebulas are the galaxy's wombs primarily. Babies don't come from nurseries.

That said, I've learned a whole lot of new and interesting things about the Milky Way. Well worth my time.

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone.

You haven't falsified it. If you have, show me where. If you're referring to Matthews lineage using Chiastic structure, that isn't an imperfection. Chaistic structure is a literary device, so Matthews genealogy is not giving us the entire line, but rather like an artistic summation of it. To say it is wrong would be like telling a painter his painting is wrong.

If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

Since you have no argument against a potential God, and couldn't tell whether you were living in His Universe or not, then how would you know if this God cares about humans or if it has laid down any edicts about how you should live your life?

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

I have been listening to you and what I have found is that if you can find some kind of excuse to dismiss something that seems even potentially legitimate, then you run with it. You only seem interested in trying to falsify the question, because you apparently have already decided it isn't true. You don't have any real evidence to prove it, but in previous conversations you have said you see no reason to bother thinking about it. In short, you don't care.

You say I'm talking about blind faith, and I'm not. I believe what I believe because God convinced me of its truth. I had no reason to believe it otherwise, and I wouldn't. I am telling you that if you draw near to God, He will draw near to you. He loves you and wants you to know Him. You just don't want to know Him and that is the problem.

Neither do you understand the law of parsimony. The law states that in explaining a given phenomenon, we should make as few assumptions as possible. Therefore, if we have two theories which are equal in explanatory power, but one has fewer assumptions, we should choose the one with fewer assumptions. However, a more complex theory with better explanatory power should be chosen over a more simplistic theory with weaker explanatory power. I think John Lennox kind of sums this all up at 3:00



Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

You were created in your parents womb; this says nothing about evolution. It only says that you have some way to come into existence, personally. It says nothing about the particulars of how that came to be.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe.

There is no reason to assert it isn't, either. In a finely tuned Universe, it is more plausible to believe it was designed rather than it just happened to be one Universe out of trillions that implausibly just looks like it was designed because if you have enough Universes eventually one will form that appears that way. Remember Occams Razor?

You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

That would be true if God were any of those things. I can agree with you though that your understanding of God is self-contradictory, alien to your experience, etc. You believe you have God figured out, when you don't know Him at all. You would actually do anything to know God, but you are rejecting Him out of ignorance.

In the scenario between multiple universes or God as a theory to describe a finely tuned Universe, God wins every time. It doesn't matter how complex God might be; the explanatory power afforded by the theory is by far superior.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped.

You're skeptical of everything that doesn't agree with your presuppositions about reality. Those I have rarely if ever seen you seriously question in all the time I have spoken to you. Regarding knowledge that agrees with those presuppositions, you feel free to speculate about that all day long and will say that virtually any of it is more plausible with no evidence. The thing is, I used to be on your side of the fence, and I know what a search for the truth looks like. This isn't it.

The smartest way to avoid being duped is to understand that you might be duped at this moment and not realize it. That's the trouble with being deceived; you think you're right when you are really wrong.

You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility.

What I've been telling you is that God is not hiding from you. You are hiding from Him. It's not that you don't know there is a God so much as you don't want to know that there is. You simply want to do whatever you think is right and you automatically reject any possibility that says this is wrong and you are in fact accountable to a higher authority. In short, your attitude towards God is not skeptical but rebellious.

Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

I concede its possible that God could have created other Universes, but I don't concede the idea that Universes just happen by themselves. This is really a very foolish idea. It's like coming across a coke can and believing wind and erosion created it. It only seems plausible to you because you must have a naturalistic explanation for your existence to make sense of your reality.

I don't expect you to believe in God unless He gives you some kind of revelation. I frequently pray that you will receive this revelation, both for you and the sake of your family.

Since I already pointed out this flawed understand of the law of parsimony, I won't reiterate that argument here.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

This is what Paul said:

1 Corinthians 15:17,19

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I wasn't there at the resurrection; I take it on faith. My faith has been borne out by the evidence, such as being born again, witnessing miracles, and experiencing the presence of God in my daily life. I don't admit any of those things; I have most definitely received revelation from God, and there is no other plausible explanation for the evidence. If you can concede that God can give you certain knowledge then you can understand why I don't doubt that knowledge.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

I *only* do? That's a false generalization. This quote is right on target, and I challenge you to show me where I have taken George out of context. This is what scientists believe, that time + chance makes just about anything possible. Has life ever been observed coming entirely from non living matter? That's a miracle, and that's what you must believe happened either here or somewhere in the Universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

It's the God of the gaps argument which is flawed. It's not a God of the gaps argument when the theory is a better explanation for the evidence.

It's just a bare fact that there is a number of physical constants in an extremely narrow range which conspire to create a life permitting Universe. It's even admitted on the wikipedia page:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

The roost of the scientific establishment today is ruled by atheistic naturalists, and they very much hate the idea of God polluting their purely naturalistic theories. They consider science to be liberated from religion and they vigorously patrol the borders, expelling anyone who dares to question the established paradigm. A biologist today who questions the fundamentals of evolutionary theory commits professional suicide. It is now conventional wisdom and you either have to get with the program or be completely shut out of the community.

Here are some other interesting quotes for you:

Richard Lewontin “does acknowledge that scientists inescapably rely on ‘rhetorical’ proofs (authority, tradition) for most of what they care about; they depend on theoretical assumptions unprovable by hard science, and their promises are often absurdly overblown … Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

I'm glad you understand that the whole enterprise of science was initially driven by the Christian idea that God created an orderly Universe based on laws, and thus we could reason out what was going on by investigating secondary causes. Yet God wasn't a metaphor for something we didn't understand; God was the reason we were interested in trying to understand in the first place, or even thought that we could.

You say there is this "because God" brick wall that we break down by determining the operations of the Universe. We can then see that it was never God at all, but X Y Z, yet what does that prove? Genesis 1 says "God created", and that He controls everything. What you're confusing is mechanism with agency. Can you rule out a clockmaker by explaining how the clock works? That's exactly what you're saying here, and it is an invalid argument.

You also act as if evolution has been indisputably proven. Let me ask you this question, since you claim to understand science so well. What is the proof and evidence that evolution is a fact? Be specific. What clinches it?

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence?

It only goes away when you come to a series of false conclusions as you have above. The evidence is there, even the scientists admit it. To avoid the conclusion multiple universes are postulated. However, this is even more implausible for this reason; the multiple universe generator would be even more fine tuned than this Universe. Therefore, you are pointing right back at a fine tuner once more.

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

I wouldn't know the truth on my own; only God can reveal what the truth is. There are two routes to the truth. One is that you're omnipotent. Another is that an omnipotent being tells you what the truth is. Can you think of any others?

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

You seem to believe that free will means God doesn't interfere in the Creation, and this isn't the case. Free will means, you have the choice to obey or disobey God. It doesn't mean you are free from Gods influences. That's the whole idea of prayer, that God is going to exert His influence on creation to change something. God is directly involved in the affairs of men, He sets up Kingdoms, He takes them away. He put you where He wanted you and He will take you out when He has sovereignly planned to do it.

Even if the prayers are sincere, God isn't going to heal everyone. Yes, either way the patient recovers or doesn't recover, and either way, God isn't going to reveal His existence outside of what He has ordained; faith in His Son Jesus Christ. Anyone trying to prove Gods existence any other way will always come away disappointed.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

Actually it was written hundreds of years before hand.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

This is why I suggested you become more familiar with theology. Yes, you're right, I meant to say consecutive. You would know they were not consecutive if you read the scripture. The prophecy identifies they are not consecutive. Please see this:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem fell in 70 AD. The gospels were written beforehand. If they were written afterwards, there would have been a mention of the fall of the city, if only to confirm the prophecy, but there is no mention of it in any of the gospels.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/messiah.htm

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The world belongs to Christ. The difference between the Lord and the other religions is this:

1 Chronicles 16:26

For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

Muslims don't have a personal relationship with God. Allah keeps them at arms length, and they mostly serve him out of fear. They also have no idea whether they are going to heaven or not. They only hope that at the end of time their good works will add up more than their bad ones. The reason Muslims choose martyrdom is because under Islam it is the only guaranteed way to go to Heaven.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

Why do metalworkers purify gold? To remove the dross. That's exactly what God is doing when He tests us:

1 Peter 1:6

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

Religious conservatives: life is sacred when it's in the womb, after that, who gives a shit?

@VoodooV
It may (or may not) surprise you that I agree with almost everything you said.

Killing is a necessary part of our society, yes.
The hypocrisy of killing (as you said, distinguished from "murder") in our modern culture is glaring.
I also agree that lots of very unpleasant things happen in a sufficiently-free society. People will kill people. People will take advantage of people. Terrorist acts will be perpetrated. People will make terrible movies and terrible art that is offensive to my sensibilities. Nothing bad will happen only when no one is allowed to choose anything for themselves.

But we do set boundaries, laws, for the precise reason you stated: "Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa."

That's what makes us a civilization, right? We give up certain freedoms with the knowledge that others will be compelled to give up those freedoms as well, and we will all be able to pursue happiness more comfortably as a result. For instance, we agree not to kill our neighbors on a whim and take their stuff, knowing that others will be compelled to avoid doing the same to us. We agree not to drive while intoxicated (even if we're really good at it) knowing that others (many of whom aren't as good at it as we totally are) will be compelled not to do so, and we'll all be less likely to get flattened.

Many of these laws imply some intrinsic value to a human life. Murder is illegal because that seriously infringes on the rights of another human. Sure, we stratify killing - murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, but the band across which individual (as opposed to institutional) killing is NOT murder is pretty narrow, especially if it's intentional. Self defense, mental illness...
This is where the abortion debate diverges from analogy and requires that we define when a fetus can be considered a human, because after that point, we're killing a human.

I also disagree with the "especially with their own body" argument. Sure, a fetus could not survive without the mother (up to a point), but if you cut that fetus, the mother will bear no scar. The child will bear that scar. Once we say there is a human there, that is no longer her body. Parents are held responsible for care of their children, and consequences are dictated for negligence. Because of my understanding of fetal development, I believe this responsibility extends into the womb.

I think the deferral of the question of "when" to "those far more educated" may nullify the entire argument. If you can accept that there's a point beyond which abortion should no longer be an option, but we don't know when it is, then we have to accept that it might be "before pregnancy can even be recognized".
The process of fetal development is fairly well-understood and documented, and you're obviously intelligent enough to appreciate the process. Maybe trying to pinpoint the "OK-NOT OK" boundry for yourself might change the way you think about the issue, or maybe not, but I believe it would make you better able to argue your point effectively. Arguing for killing a human in order to increase the quality of life of someone else strikes me as being a very difficult position to defend. Arguing for removing a mass of tissue with the potential for becoming a human seems much more defensible. But again, we obviously see this issue with differing perspectives.

>> ^bobknight33:

Unless you have young kids you have no room to talk. You don't have knowledge to make any judgement.
Parenting IS filtering out inappropriate material.
I'm talking when a 6 year old is clicking channels to get to his cartoon channel it at times comes across inappropriate material.
WRT to web serving same thing. The kid can be you You-tubing or sifting for kitty cat stuff and come across some wild stuff. Sure I don't want my 6 and 7 year seeing women and men rubbing up against each other or to watch some brutal gang violence event that some posted. What parent would? Some parents don't mind at all and that a darn shame. There are limits for kids and parenting filtering is a must.

I take responsibility for my kids upbringing. If other parents stepped up to the plate kids would have better moral compass.
When you have kids, revisit your post.
You don't seem to have high regard for the parenting skills from you mother. sorry to hear that.

>> ^VoodooV:
Instead of blaming television @bobknight33, the responsibility is still ultimately the parents. You don't have to be a parent to know that. Parents are not helpless to modern television. If you can't be bothered to educate your kids on the difference between made up television and reality, you don't get to blame television. My mom was a pretty horrible parent, but that is one of the first things I recall her ever teaching me. So since I'm actually armed with this thing called knowledge. I can watch any TV I wish and it's not damaging to me because IT'S NOT REAL!
It's the same thing with the teachers. Parents don't want to be the parents anymore, they want to be their pal. So when little billy doesn't do well on his test, who gets chewed out? Not little billy, that's for sure. Parents blame the teachers when they should be blaming themselves.
You can believe television and commercials are inappropriate all you want. Still doesn't absolve you from your responsibility. History has shown over and over again that when you try to hide shit from your kids, they always find it eventually. The more forcefully you dictate how bad something is, the more the kids want to do it just to spite you and rebel. So instead of trying to trick and coerce your kids into behaving, maybe you should actually try to educate them. If your "education" has any merit to it, then it will stick. Education beats coercion every time.
Parenting is not rocket science, it just takes effort, so you can get off your moral high horse. You've demonstrated time and time again you have no claim to any moral high ground, especially not any morality based off made up deities.



Once again, bob laughably attempts to claim moral superiority over everyone. Sorry, but you aren't magically granted wisdom the instant the kid pops out of the womb.

When you fail to educate your kids WHY things are inappropriate and just filter because "you said so" then you're not accomplishing anything. Authority without the actual facts to back it up fails EVERY time to kids with nothing better to do than to rebel. It's the hot stove analogy which you apparently failed to learn. Parents will tell you to not touch that hot stove. Kids disregard this and touch it anyway and are immediately introduced to the facts of WHY you shouldn't touch a hot stove and guess what..they never do it again.

If you told a kid to never touch a cold stove...because you said so. The kid eventually touches it and learns that nothing bad comes of it. Not only are they encouraged to rebel. Your authority is undermined and they learn that you're full of shit and continue to ignore you.

In other words, since bob probably hasn't been following. Moral authority means absolutely jack unless you have provable facts to back it up. When kids find out you're bullshitting them. Kids have this pesky thing called the ability to learn and the ability to detect bullshit. Telling them not to do something only because your imaginary friend up in the clouds told you so has a way of coming back to bite you in the ass when the imaginary friend in the clouds doesn't punish them because that imaginary friend doesn't exist.

Bob lives in the typical republican bubble where he deludes himself into believing he's the good parent and everyone else is lacking. What's it like being so self-centered bob?

And once again, Bob cherry picks what he wants to hear and disregards everything else. I praise my mom for teaching me that TV is make-believe and all bob chooses to hear is the negative part. You are utterly incapable of having a rational discussion bob. I've proven this time and time again. The sift is going to continue to beat you over the head with logic and rationality every time until hopefully you learn something.

>> ^bobknight33:

If I was in the womb I would not fear GOD, I would fear my mother.
Mothers murder their own more than all other types of murder combined. Here in America we do a lot of murdering. Its like a national pastime sport in some cities.


then you'd be fearing christian mothers..as christian mothers have the most abortions

Whoever can do this to anything that is clearly going to suffer and for the sole purpose of it suffering, they need to be put down as they are a very cruel individual.

As for the life aspect:

I think the argument for when is someone alive is very to similar for when is it time to consider pulling the plug on someone.

If someone can't survive on their own without extreme external measures, it really isn't a self sustaining life.

One day they might be able to cut off your head and keep you aware.....most people wouldn't consider that a life unless you could react or communicate. Much like a coma patient is not kept indefinitely once it becomes unlikely they will ever be able to function on their own.

A fetus up to a certain point is unable to survive outside the womb, it's more akin to a parasite at that stage....even though that sounds like a horrible comparison and isn't quite exact. But it's closer to a parasite than a carried to term baby if it can't survive outside of the mother's body. At that point it's a part of the mother's body and not it's own functional entity. Not that babies are particularly adept at feeding themselves or anything, but they won't die at any moment if left unattended for a bit.

If I was in the womb I would not fear GOD, I would fear my mother.

Mothers murder their own more than all other types of murder combined. Here in America we do a lot of murdering. Its like a national pastime sport in some cities.