Abortion

[yellowfang]

The Mayo Clinic is a business. Yes. It has a marketing page. Yes. That does not mean the facts it dissiminates are questionable. That's conspiracy theorism. The same facts can be found on multiple websites.

Here's where you ball up your credibility and toss it right out the window. You keep saying "don't have an abortion, there can be complications". But you aren't saying "don't have babies, there can be complications". Or "don't have an appendectomy, there can be complications". Or "don't have a colonoscopy, there can be complications". All medical procedures carry a risk of complication. But it doesn't seem to bother you as much in any other procedure but abortion. You seem to be relying on instillation of fear to boost your opinion of abortion. All I'm doing, is showing that the data don't support your tactic. I'm not attacking your opinion at all. Just your tactic. And all you can say about that, is "you should really fear what I am just positive is really going on, don't trust facts." That's extremely dishonest. But then I'm not sure that honesty is important to you, given the exceedingly negative, bordering on abhorrent, opinion you have of people who don't agree with you on this issue. So you rock on with that. I'm sure I'm not the first person who's told you something similar.

Marisa, you've presented no facts. You've relied on what somebody else says are the facts, and I've suggested there's reason to question their motives.

I spent a number of years in pharma research, and the one thing I will never forget is the big disconnect between the research, and the executive leadership. The bench scientists either want to help people, or they just want a job. Executive management proved it was willing to subordinate the "help people" motive, to their legal responsibility to make money.

As to your claim that I find people "abhorrent" because they disagree with me: I've made it clear that I consider mankind to be broken. We are self - serving to a fault, and tend to be disdainful of others when they don't agree with us. These behaviors are exacerbated when polarized issues are discussed. I find certain actions are abhorrent, and I have a hard time understanding how people justify doing something that I would think might at least give them pause. On the contrary, they talk about rights, women's health, "my body" and other euphemisms that only serve to obscure the fact that they are killing a baby.

In reality, I don't keep saying there can be complications (if I recall, I cited complications in rebuttal to somebody else's post). I keep saying that it's a selfish decision. I had an appendectomy, and there was no moral or ethical consideration. It astounds me that no proponent of abortion seems willing to address the obvious moral and ethical issues surrounding abortion. The viability argument is absurd. By the same logic, we could kill any quadroplegic, paralytic, or otherwise incapacitated person as soon as the food was depleted from their fridge. Steven Hawking would have been an easy target, as he couldn't "survive unassisted."

Finally, my honesty and my view of people are not related. That is, my view that abortion, for most circumstances under which it is performed, is a terrible recourse does not reflect on my honesty. I accept that it does reflect on my character. I have attempted to be as compassionate, understanding, and respectful as possible, while stating that the action is ugly. So far, every reason given for abortion has been selfish, which supports my original post.

Here's my summary: people have despised me for my posts, I have disdained them for their selfishness, we have insulted each other, and generally acted in pride and arrogance on both sides of a contentious issue. I again assert that mankind is broken, in these and many other ways.

Man is so broken, that God in His mercy provided a solution. Not that we could be magically perfect on earth, but that the sacrifice of Christ would reconcile us to our creator, so long as we accept Christ's sacrifice for what it was.

I cringe every time I retort in pride or spite. I sometimes fool myself into thinking that, so long as I am doing it "for the children," that it's all good. But we are judged by what's in our hearts, not by our intentions. And because I regularly fail that criterion, I am grateful that Jesus paid for my failure with his life.

In the end, I would rather be on God's side of any issue. Sometimes the science supports God's side, and sometimes science simply doesn't know. Science spends a significant amount of time discovering it's been wrong, yet somehow usually manages to convey the idea that "NOW we're sure!"

 

[Marisa]

Marisa, you've presented no facts. You've relied on what somebody else says are the facts, and I've suggested there's reason to question their motives.

No, there's not. Because if there was, we would know it. We would SEE it. One Gosnell clinic shows up and the whole nation loses it's mind, rightly so, but no stream of them comes after. Logic. It's a thing. No, I'm not out personally doing the research. But I have zero reason to question it. You, clearly, do. So, you do. What reason do I have to trust you? I mean I'm not supposed to trust the people whose business this is. Why should I trust you? Because your dad told you something I have every reason to believe you misunderstood either by accident or by design?

ETA: Forgot to add that Indiana, one of the more conservative states in good ole 'Murica, just released a report exonerating Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing in its abortion facilities. Cleared! If there was the rampant misreporting of complication rates going on that you seem to think there is, we'd know it.

As to your claim that I find people "abhorrent" because they disagree with me: I've made it clear that I consider mankind to be broken. We are self - serving to a fault, and tend to be disdainful of others when they don't agree with us. These behaviors are exacerbated when polarized issues are discussed. I find certain actions are abhorrent, and I have a hard time understanding how people justify doing something that I would think might at least give them pause. On the contrary, they talk about rights, women's health, "my body" and other euphemisms that only serve to obscure the fact that they are killing a baby.

And therein lies the problem. You have a likely evolutionarily guided emotional reaction to what the rest of medicine calls a blastocyst, embryo or fetus (but not a baby, in utero, which I'm sure you know). And you use that emotional reaction to create fear where there is zero evidence that fear should be. You judge the circumstances of people you don't even know, and you judge them harshly, by your own standards. Rights, women's health and bodily autonomy are just "things" to you. Rights. Just a thing. Imagine that.

In reality, I don't keep saying there can be complications (if I recall, I cited complications in rebuttal to somebody else's post). I keep saying that it's a selfish decision. I had an appendectomy, and there was no moral or ethical consideration. It astounds me that no proponent of abortion seems willing to address the obvious moral and ethical issues surrounding abortion. The viability argument is absurd. By the same logic, we could kill any quadroplegic, paralytic, or otherwise incapacitated person as soon as the food was depleted from their fridge. Steven Hawking would have been an easy target, as he couldn't "survive unassisted."

Each pregnant woman who considers abortion addresses the moral and ethical issues surrounding abortion. She makes a decision based on HER morals and ethics, NOT YOURS. And that is as it should be, because . . . rights, health, bodily autonomy. They aren't "just things" when they are yours.

Finally, my honesty and my view of people are not related. That is, my view that abortion, for most circumstances under which it is performed, is a terrible recourse does not reflect on my honesty. I accept that it does reflect on my character. I have attempted to be as compassionate, understanding, and respectful as possible, while stating that the action is ugly. So far, every reason given for abortion has been selfish, which supports my original post.

If refuting a presentation of existing, accepted, factual data on a subject you have a moral objection to with "oh, pshaw, people be liars" is an example of what constitutes honesty to you then you and I have very different definitions of what that word means.

Here's my summary: people have despised me for my posts, I have disdained them for their selfishness, we have insulted each other, and generally acted in pride and arrogance on both sides of a contentious issue. I again assert that mankind is broken, in these and many other ways.

Have I said I despise you? Or are you making an assumption about me based on the fact that I pushed back against your introduction of errant data?

 

[yellowfang]

No, there's not. Because if there was, we would know it. We would SEE it. One Gosnell clinic shows up and the whole nation loses it's mind, rightly so, but no stream of them comes after. Logic. It's a thing. No, I'm not out personally doing the research. But I have zero reason to question it. You, clearly, do. So, you do. What reason do I have to trust you? I mean I'm not supposed to trust the people whose business this is. Why should I trust you? Because your dad told you something I have every reason to believe you misunderstood either by accident or by design?

ETA: Forgot to add that Indiana, one of the more conservative states in good ole 'Murica, just released a report exonerating Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing in its abortion facilities. Cleared! If there was the rampant misreporting of complication rates going on that you seem to think there is, we'd know it.


And therein lies the problem. You have a likely evolutionarily guided emotional reaction to what the rest of medicine calls a blastocyst, embryo or fetus (but not a baby, in utero, which I'm sure you know). And you use that emotional reaction to create fear where there is zero evidence that fear should be. You judge the circumstances of people you don't even know, and you judge them harshly, by your own standards. Rights, women's health and bodily autonomy are just "things" to you. Rights. Just a thing. Imagine that.


Each pregnant woman who considers abortion addresses the moral and ethical issues surrounding abortion. She makes a decision based on HER morals and ethics, NOT YOURS. And that is as it should be, because . . . rights, health, bodily autonomy. They aren't "just things" when they are yours.


If refuting a presentation of existing, accepted, factual data on a subject you have a moral objection to with "oh, pshaw, people be liars" is an example of what constitutes honesty to you then you and I have very different definitions of what that word means.


Have I said I despise you? Or are you making an assumption about me based on the fact that I pushed back against your introduction of errant data?

I said "people" because, after 150 pages of posts, I can't remember who said what.

Morality is not relative. If everybody gets to decide what's right and wrong, then the words lose their meaning.

People are liars, where money is concerned. I've seen scientist A destroy scientist B's experiment by spitting into B's sterile cell culture so A had a better chance at getting a government research grant, and then lie through their teeth about it. I've seen research data falsified, and no end of data that can't be reproduced.


I was a biochemist before I came to faith. I am still a cynic, based on my years of observing people lie, cheat, and steal. I don't expect to convince you that I'm right, but I hope you at least learn to question what you're told, rather than trusting "M.D." or "Mayo."

Whatever my emotional liability, you suffer something similar: the adamant refusal to accept that anything I say might be true. I'd guess that, like all people, you react emotionally to any challenge to your worldview. If somebody tells you Brussels sprouts are the best vegetable, you won't resist that nearly as much as you would that taking a baby's life is wrong, since you've been an advocate.

And before you say the same about me, my faith is a result of a direct attack on my world view, as well as conviction due to my failures (personal, character, ethical, moral). The only conclusion I could draw from that twenty year process is that man is broken, and will be held accountable.

I'm only indirectly discussing abortion now. You can't discuss it without talking about the basis for right and wrong. Tell me it's relative, when young girls have their clitoris and labia cut off by their fathers with a scissors, a knife, or a piece of glass, and no anaesthetic while Americans fight tooth and nail for the "right" to kill their unborn babies. If you had to choose to support or defend one of those, is there really a choice as to which one? Are we really so morally confused that we can't call something absolutely wrong? My church is buying children in India out of sex slavery for US $1385 per child, one at a time, and all I can think is: what about the ones we don't reach? Is child sex slavery not absolutely wrong?

The cost of being "morally flexible" is too high, yet too many people don't see the damage.

 

[Marisa]

I said "people" because, after 150 pages of posts, I can't remember who said what.

Morality is not relative. If everybody gets to decide what's right and wrong, then the words lose their meaning.

Yes it is. Some people think dancing is immoral. Some think drinking alcohol is.

We're banging our heads against the wall with the rest. I'm never going to show you a piece of fact or data you will accept because you don't value them. But you are wrong about me. If you could present me a piece of evidence, you'd change my mind. Not about the reality of bodily choice. But if you could supply evidence that the risk of abortion is so drastically understated despite the fact that we so absolutely zero evidence of this covering up of data, you'd change my mind. Because I value evidence.

You can be morally opposed to abortion without encouraging the spread of disinformation and engaging in scare tactics. Because it's like choosing a favorite flavor of ice cream. You don't have to spread falsehoods about the dangers of strawberries and vanilla beans in order to assert that in your opinion, chocolate is the best best flavor EVER for ice cream to come in.

I don't advocate abortion. I advocate the right of all women to own their bodies and have the final say over what happens to it. It would really be nice if, while you're talking about my perspective, you stepped out of your own long enough to make sure you peg me to the right board. NOBODY is fighting for the "right to kill babies". We are fighting for the right to own our bodies the same way you do.

 

[yellowfang]

Yes it is. Some people think dancing is immoral. Some think drinking alcohol is.

We're banging our heads against the wall with the rest. I'm never going to show you a piece of fact or data you will accept because you don't value them. But you are wrong about me. If you could present me a piece of evidence, you'd change my mind. Not about the reality of bodily choice. But if you could supply evidence that the risk of abortion is so drastically understated despite the fact that we so absolutely zero evidence of this covering up of data, you'd change my mind. Because I value evidence.

You can be morally opposed to abortion without encouraging the spread of disinformation and engaging in scare tactics. Because it's like choosing a favorite flavor of ice cream. You don't have to spread falsehoods about the dangers of strawberries and vanilla beans in order to assert that in your opinion, chocolate is the best best flavor EVER for ice cream to come in.

I don't advocate abortion. I advocate the right of all women to own their bodies and have the final say over what happens to it. It would really be nice if, while you're talking about my perspective, you stepped out of your own long enough to make sure you peg me to the right board. NOBODY is fighting for the "right to kill babies". We are fighting for the right to own our bodies the same way you do.

The risk is not THE issue. Of primary concern is the taking of a baby's life. As important is the consideration of where morality comes from.

I guarantee that if a Muslim raped you, which he is permitted to do under Sharia, that in your heart, you would know, without a doubt, that rape is wrong, and no amount of arguing would convince you otherwise. I also guarantee that if a man raped that same Muslim man's wife or sister, that man would know it to be wrong.

Then he would kill her.

 

[Marisa]

The risk is not THE issue. Of primary concern is the taking of a baby's life. As important is the consideration of where morality comes from.

If risk is not the "the" issue, then why tell that particular half-thruth? You had to know that someone was going to correct it.

If your version of morality is so superior to every other on this issue then you should have no trouble selling it honestly.

FYI, I don't appreciate the other tactic you're using here, which is emotional blackmail. We're talking about one subject here. If you'd like to start a "these are the line item, bullet pointed reasons why I think all humans suck" thread, go ahead. But that's not THIS thread.

 

[yellowfang]

If risk is not the "the" issue, then why tell that particular half-thruth? You had to know that someone was going to correct it.

If your version of morality is so superior to every other on this issue then you should have no trouble selling it.

FYI, I don't appreciate the other tactic you're using here, which is emotional blackmail. We're talking about one subject here. If you'd like to start a "these are the line item, bullet pointed reasons why I think all humans suck" thread, go ahead. But that's not THIS thread.

And I already stated, any discussion of abortion has to be based on right versus wrong.

I've come up with some of man's most vile "morality," and you are offended by...my tactics? Aside from the pro-life movement, my tactics and dishonesty, does anything offend you? I don't mean things like bad breath, but real heinous stuff, like mass murder or a KKK hanging?

 

[yellowfang]

And I already stated, any discussion of abortion has to be based on right versus wrong.

I've come up with some of man's most vile "morality," and you are offended by...my tactics? Aside from the pro-life movement, my tactics and dishonesty, does anything offend you? I don't mean things like bad breath, but real heinous stuff, like mass murder or a KKK hanging?

My whole point has been, I'm too broken to lay claim to "my version" of morality. Biblical morality, based on Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, is founded on one principle: we are broken, and need an advocate to take the punishment for our transgressions. God is the author of morality, not me.

 

[Marisa]

My whole point has been, I'm too broken to lay claim to "my version" of morality. Biblical morality, based on Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, is founded on one principle: we are broken, and need an advocate to take the punishment for our transgressions. God is the author of morality, not me.

I am not broken. That's a meaningless phrase. I broke a chip off my right ankle bone when I was a young woman, but that's the closest I've been. I'm not interested in comparing your ethics to mine. It, too, is pointless. I'm interested in the fact that you seem to think I'm not competent to make decisions for myself while in possession of a uterus, an organ of mine over which your opinions are most unwelcome.

 

[yellowfang]

I am not broken. That's a meaningless phrase. I broke a chip off my right ankle bone when I was a young woman, but that's the closest I've been. I'm not interested in comparing your ethics to mine. It, too, is pointless. I'm interested in the fact that you seem to think I'm not competent to make decisions for myself while in possession of a uterus, an organ of mine over which your opinions are most unwelcome.

Competence is irrelevant. You are responsible for your decisions. And you will be called to account for your decisions.

 

[yellowfang]

I am not broken. That's a meaningless phrase. I broke a chip off my right ankle bone when I was a young woman, but that's the closest I've been. I'm not interested in comparing your ethics to mine. It, too, is pointless. I'm interested in the fact that you seem to think I'm not competent to make decisions for myself while in possession of a uterus, an organ of mine over which your opinions are most unwelcome.

If you are not broken, then you are perfect, righteous and without sin. Jesus Christ is the only one to live on earth perfect and free of sin.

Nobody else in the history of the world has been free of sin. You have lied, stolen, and hurt people, just as I have. But God loves me so much, that he sent the sinless, perfect man Jesus Christ to die on my behalf, so when I stand before God when I die, I will have the righteousness of Jesus.

And in love, He would do the same for you.

 

[Marisa]

Competence is irrelevant. You are responsible for your decisions. And you will be called to account for your decisions.

If you are not broken, then you are perfect, righteous and without sin. Jesus Christ is the only one to live on earth perfect and free of sin.

Nobody else in the history of the world has been free of sin. You have lied, stolen, and hurt people, just as I have. But God loves me so much, that he sent the sinless, perfect man Jesus Christ to die on my behalf, so when I stand before God when I die, I will have the righteousness of Jesus.

And in love, He would do the same for you.

There are parts of this message board where preaching is more welcomed, although last I checked preaching remains against the rules. Perhaps those comments will be better received in one of those parts of the board.

 

[yellowfang]

There are parts of this message board where preaching is more welcomed, although last I checked preaching remains against the rules. Perhaps those comments will be better received in one of those parts of the board.

Goodbye. I wish you well.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Prove it. Prove God actually does anything to anyone, ever. This ought to be good.



Produce one. Just one. Prove it was actually a miracle, performed by God. This also ought to be entertaining.



It is a natural occurrence, there's no evidence that any imaginary friends in the sky had anything to do with it. Births happen by the millions every single day.

Unfortunately, it would require a miracle to happen to you to prove that miracles happen. And then, you will have an infinite regression of miracles. "I want God to make miracle three happen to prove miracle two happened to prove miracle one really happened!" Jesus Christ could appear to you bodily today and you have an excuse--"Hey, I just had an hallucination, man!" Theologians speak of the passive wrath of God. Please don't invoke it on yourself, because if you're the kind who likes to drop chalk onto your shoe in front of your class to prove God doesn't exist, He will most likely let you drop the chalk--but hold you accountable at a later date. Be cautious!

I take a different route to prove miracles happen, starting with... Is it reasonable to review the creation of the universe as having a finite beginning? The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy does not allow for the sudden introduction of energy and matter into our time/space. Start with the basics, please, before you jump down every theist's throat.

Because if even one person has experienced one true spiritual encounter, even one time in human history, your (wholly) materialist viewpoint is untrue.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes. Like I said, I am pro choice. Not pro choice only when I agree with the choice. Is this concept foreign to you or something, mate?
Okay so (I had to Google a pound because I only know the metric system) at one pound this is at approximately 22 -26 weeks, yes? The second trimester? I would assume that the chances of survival are taken into account when the woman consults her Doctor. You know? The medical professional?!! And not some random yahoo quoting crap from the interwebz!!
Here's the survival rates I found.
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/what...remely_premature_infant-health/article_em.htm
Ehh, if a woman still wants to abort a fetus that has 2 or 3 out 10 survival rating, then that's her business. But I'm pretty sure most people would have aborted before the 3 month mark (unless they couldn't find a medical facility. Ahem!!)



Let me break it down for you.
In a slavery scenario the "Southerners" as you put it are literally owning other people. They have gotten rid of the slave's personal autonomy and deprived them of this right. Therefore someone saying "well they have that right" by default deprives a fully autonomous human of their personal autonomy.
A woman has an abortion of her own free choice. She is not denied her personal autonomy as such not akin to slavery. A woman is forced to abort or carry the child to term. This violates her right to personal autonomy and therefore can be argued that it is akin to slavery. Do you follow? Your analogy only works if you ignore the actual slaves in the scenario. The slavers can't be given that choice to own slaves because that is infringing on another (post birth even) person's rights and personal autonomy. A fetus doesn't have those same rights, it has the potential to if it survives outside of the womb. But it's rights are limited at best.



Yes, I find the black and white "absolute values" thing quite simplistic and lacking nuance.
The personal autonomy a person has doesn't trump the personal autonomy of another person. And people aren't property, not even kids are property though I have seen American law treat them as such (ours do too, but not as much. That's not a swipe against America, mind you. Merely an observation.) That's why slavery is illegal to begin with. That's why kidnapping is illegal. That's why rape is illegal. That's why false imprisonment is illegal. That's why you can't be forced to give even an ounce of blood to a dying person. You want to argue that the personal autonomy of white southern ******** trump the personal autonomy of slaves because????? You consider black people to not be people? That may have worked when we bolstered our hubris in the past with faulty "Science" but not today. Which is what we're dealing with here. Not 200 years ago, we live in the year 2015. We have moved on and can say that in hindsight slavery was ****ty. Drudging up something that happened before our grandparents were even born doesn't help your case. I could argue well, opium usage was prominent 200 years ago, it wasn't illegal per se. So let us make opium usage legal now and have opium dens like we used to!! Or let's go back further. The Witch Trials!! Do you want to argue that the personal autonomy of the judges outrank the victim's right not to be burnt alive for a crime they didn't commit? Why? I certainly haven't.



YES! When a fetus leaves the womb, all it really needs is an adult. It doesn't need a mother then, otherwise single dads would all kill their infants by their sheer existence. So once a fetus leaves the womb, then I consider it's autonomy to be in force.


I am. Like you just said, the autonomy of the baby is only in force when the baby is no longer dependent on the mother (I said specifically several times and even just before that the perimeters are this. When the baby leaves the womb of the mother and can survive without her. I don't know of many toddlers still inside the womb, Do you?) Stop trying to twist my values to say I'm not against killing toddlers, sir. It's most intellectually dishonest.

The analogy applies because the slaves didn't have the weapons or power to validate their own uprising. Liberators helped end the practice.

The problem is it sounds like you are saying if doctors can help a 15-week-old preemie come to survive next year, that we should roll back the abortion final date to 15 weeks. That's tantamount to saying doctors have the power of life and death--and can terminate the feeble as well. Shudder.

 

[Cephus]

Unfortunately, it would require a miracle to happen to you to prove that miracles happen. And then, you will have an infinite regression of miracles. "I want God to make miracle three happen to prove miracle two happened to prove miracle one really happened!" Jesus Christ could appear to you bodily today and you have an excuse--"Hey, I just had an hallucination, man!" Theologians speak of the passive wrath of God. Please don't invoke it on yourself, because if you're the kind who likes to drop chalk onto your shoe in front of your class to prove God doesn't exist, He will most likely let you drop the chalk--but hold you accountable at a later date. Be cautious!

I take a different route to prove miracles happen, starting with... Is it reasonable to review the creation of the universe as having a finite beginning? The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy does not allow for the sudden introduction of energy and matter into our time/space. Start with the basics, please, before you jump down every theist's throat.

Because if even one person has experienced one true spiritual encounter, even one time in human history, your (wholly) materialist viewpoint is untrue.

No. I don't have to fall off a tall building to prove that gravity exists. I don't have to be in a car crash to understand the physics of a car crash. If you're claiming that it happens at all, it needs to be open to evaluation by all. You're engaging in special pleading. In fact, that seems to be all you're doing. You haven't demonstrated that anyone has ever experienced a single true spiritual encounter. You cannot do so. You can only assert it. Your assertion about the "creation" of the universe is likewise based on a misunderstanding about the nature of the universe itself. Would you like some help on identifying that misunderstanding or can you work it out for yourself?

 

[SomeRandom]

The analogy applies because the slaves didn't have the weapons or power to validate their own uprising. Liberators helped end the practice.

The problem is it sounds like you are saying if doctors can help a 15-week-old preemie come to survive next year, that we should roll back the abortion final date to 15 weeks. That's tantamount to saying doctors have the power of life and death--and can terminate the feeble as well. Shudder.

So you're saying it's ethical to enslave people so long as they don't have the same level of firepower?
Slaves are all post birth people stripped of personal autonomy just like a post birth woman who is stripped of her personal autonomy when forced to either gestate or abort. I don't know how much clearer I can say this. Your slavery analogy fits a lot better on forcing women to give up their autonomy than it does a fetus/zygote being terminated before it even knows what it is yet.

Doctors do have the power of life and death in their hands. They always had. You don't go to a priest to save your mortal life you go to a doctor. They deal with life or death situations every day. One slip up can literally cost someone's life. That's why they are extensively trained and expected to have high IQs.
Viability is based more on stats than it is pipe dreams. How much is the survival rate of 15 week old premies may I ask? 10% 5% lower? Higher?
I'm pro choice. This means even if I personally disagree with elective abortion I do not say that no one else should have that option. Nor do I apply a specific time frame to the choice. Though late term abortions are usually mostly medically necessary.
And watching my father die an agonising death whilst he was extremely embarrassed by it has made me pro elective euthanasia, provided informed consent is there and is strictly followed. Just in case you're going where I think you're going with this.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So you're saying it's ethical to enslave people so long as they don't have the same level of firepower?
Slaves are all post birth people stripped of personal autonomy just like a post birth woman who is stripped of her personal autonomy when forced to either gestate or abort. I don't know how much clearer I can say this. Your slavery analogy fits a lot better on forcing women to give up their autonomy than it does a fetus/zygote being terminated before it even knows what it is yet.

Doctors do have the power of life and death in their hands. They always had. You don't go to a priest to save your mortal life you go to a doctor. They deal with life or death situations every day. One slip up can literally cost someone's life. That's why they are extensively trained and expected to have high IQs.
Viability is based more on stats than it is pipe dreams. How much is the survival rate of 15 week old premies may I ask? 10% 5% lower? Higher?
I'm pro choice. This means even if I personally disagree with elective abortion I do not say that no one else should have that option. Nor do I apply a specific time frame to the choice. Though late term abortions are usually mostly medically necessary.
And watching my father die an agonising death whilst he was extremely embarrassed by it has made me pro elective euthanasia, provided informed consent is there and is strictly followed. Just in case you're going where I think you're going with this.

Amazing response. And I'm so sorry you went through all that with your fathers passing.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you're saying it's ethical to enslave people so long as they don't have the same level of firepower?
Slaves are all post birth people stripped of personal autonomy just like a post birth woman who is stripped of her personal autonomy when forced to either gestate or abort. I don't know how much clearer I can say this. Your slavery analogy fits a lot better on forcing women to give up their autonomy than it does a fetus/zygote being terminated before it even knows what it is yet.

Doctors do have the power of life and death in their hands. They always had. You don't go to a priest to save your mortal life you go to a doctor. They deal with life or death situations every day. One slip up can literally cost someone's life. That's why they are extensively trained and expected to have high IQs.
Viability is based more on stats than it is pipe dreams. How much is the survival rate of 15 week old premies may I ask? 10% 5% lower? Higher?
I'm pro choice. This means even if I personally disagree with elective abortion I do not say that no one else should have that option. Nor do I apply a specific time frame to the choice. Though late term abortions are usually mostly medically necessary.
And watching my father die an agonising death whilst he was extremely embarrassed by it has made me pro elective euthanasia, provided informed consent is there and is strictly followed. Just in case you're going where I think you're going with this.

You sound like a Revoltistanian.
If you didn't have such dashing good looks, I'd swear you were one of us!

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. I don't have to fall off a tall building to prove that gravity exists. I don't have to be in a car crash to understand the physics of a car crash. If you're claiming that it happens at all, it needs to be open to evaluation by all. You're engaging in special pleading. In fact, that seems to be all you're doing. You haven't demonstrated that anyone has ever experienced a single true spiritual encounter. You cannot do so. You can only assert it. Your assertion about the "creation" of the universe is likewise based on a misunderstanding about the nature of the universe itself. Would you like some help on identifying that misunderstanding or can you work it out for yourself?

Please do not hijack this abortion thread. I understand the suspension of conservation of matter and energy that occurred when this universe began, based on my understanding of currently accepted theories of cosmology. But since you say you understand the "physics" of a miracle, please tell me what a miracle is.

Thanks.