It is hypocritical to use religion and the Bible to justify opposition to abortion.

[Kenny]

No that is disingenuous, there is sufficient objective evidence that oncological treatments work. No one has been able to demonstrate any objective evidence for prayer, let alone anything comparable to the medical evidence for oncological treatments. The research that demonstrate intercessory prayer had no discernible effect is well known, it was a double blind test on post op heart patients. None of that is just my opinion.

Well it wouldn't would it, that's now how superstitious beliefs work, though I'd bet my house that if the double blind clinical trials had demonstrate intercessory prayer had an effect you'd have accepted it immediately, that just demonstrates selection bias, which of course is what theists use when they claim prayers work, they only cite the results when they match the prayer, then when they fail, god is simply mysterious.

Again, I disagree and you probably don't understand the parameters because you don't believe in it.

What good is a double blind clinical test if you are using the wrong product or using it improperly?

So what, they can't demonstrate any objective evidence for their belief

You ought to google "verified medical miracles" Objective, empirical and verifiable.

 

[Sheldon]

Again, I disagree and you probably don't understand the parameters because you don't believe in it.

Hard to say since you'd have to give me some clue what you're disagreeing with?

What good is a double blind clinical test if you are using the wrong product or using it improperly?

Well if theists disagree on the efficacy of prayer that is their concern, the research was sound. Though I never expected theists to simply accept the facts, this is not how selection bias works.

You ought to google "verified medical miracles" Objective, empirical and verifiable.

Google mermaids are real, it's your criteria, so one assumes you now believe mermaids are real?

"I've seen a miracle" is no different than "I've seen mermaids", and miracles are defined to infer an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, they are irrational by definition.

 

[Kenny]

Hard to say since you'd have to give me some clue what you're disagreeing with?

That there are too many parameters to prayer than just "praying"

Well if theists disagree on the efficacy of prayer that is their concern, the research was sound. Though I never expected theists to simply accept the facts, this is not how selection bias works.

This is just a statement with no support.

Google mermaids are real, it's your criteria, so one assumes you now believe mermaids are real?

"I've seen a miracle" is no different than "I've seen mermaids", and miracles are defined to infer an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, they are irrational by definition.

I didn't think you were interested. You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him drink (as the saying goes)

 

[viole]

Does the DNA already have the information of heartbeat, brainwaves, fingerprints, at one hour old?

Yes. and?

Again, do you think that the same moral considerations are applicable to both a three years old girl, and a one hour old embryo? Probably you approve the death penalty for murder. Do you think we should execute girls who took the day after pill, causing the termination of a few hours old embryo, for instance? If not, why not, since they are all human lives with exactly the same value?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I disagree...

Genesis 16:11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

The angel and God never referred a pregnancy as an "it" or a "maybe" or a "fetus". He called them "child" - a human being created with a purpose.

It’s a figure of speech. Do you think women who uncovered the man’s feet were actually dealing with feet?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

People were called to joint Noah, and people didn't pay any attention, those people died.

End of the story.

Can’t take the offer of salvation seriously when no one ever says there were rooms for all the people who were supposed to go with them.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Eugenics?

I have more respect to life than that.

I noticed you didn't add "improve science to make the child whole". Why?
Or ask a mom whose child had a short life and tell her, "you shouldn't have had the baby". I can assure you that historical evidence say they were happy to have the baby even if it was 5 days.
Or tell a mentally handicapped child, "Isn't a shame you weren't aborted?" Or ask him "are you glad you are alive""

As horrible as it may be, let's help those people.

THEY were happy. The child suffered.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

what scientific evidence do you have that it isn't a person?

At what point do you scientifically determine it is a person?

Personhood is about sentience, not species. Without any means of processing information, it is a person only if you are an animist who thinks everything is a person, even the bacteria on and in your body.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Interesting thought. I am around a BIG amount of Christians and never heard of that. However, I believe I heard that from atheists who were looking to thinning out the herd for the benefit of the green earth.

I have

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Have you a better track record than science in that area? Ever succeeded in separating siamese twins just by praying?

Science got closer to replacing a head than Jesus was. Poor John the Baptist…

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

We know that cancer treatments aren't successful but we do it anyway because if it does work sometimes, it is better than not. We have two people which received a 3-6 months life sentence(one with an inoperable tumor and one with cancer).

Legally the cancer patients must be able to have informed consent.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I notice you have no idea when a baby becomes a person but you want to abort the person. Why?

Personally I think the mirror test allows for an objective test of sense of self. Can’t use pain because there are sentient people without that capacity. The person must be able to reason beyond instinct and must have a sense of self.

 

[Ponder This]

I didn't, I quite specifically engaged the context of a previous claim.

I would appreciate it if you would do that.

Using facts and empathy for human suffering, I would suggest.

That doesn't answer the question, but maybe it's a start.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And if you insist to not answer, let me ask you: even if we can only screen for those horrible diseases after 12 weeks, would you still insist in letting the pregnancy to finish, and the child to die after a few months of suffering?

My mom had a brother and sister who died 9 hours after birth. They never got a life.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Hard to say since you'd have to give me some clue what you're disagreeing with?

That there are too many parameters to prayer than just "praying"

Nope, still not clear on what you are disagreeing with sorry?

Well if theists disagree on the efficacy of prayer that is their concern, the research was sound. Though I never expected theists to simply accept the facts, this is not how selection bias works.

This is just a statement with no support.

What is, you'll need to offer something cogent sorry, not generic unevidenced assertions.

I didn't think you were interested. You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him drink (as the saying goes)

That makes no sense in this context?

You said:

KenS said: ↑
You ought to google "verified medical miracles" Objective, empirical and verifiable.

Then I responded with:

Sheldon said: ↑
Google mermaids are real, it's your criteria, so one assumes you now believe mermaids are real?

"I've seen a miracle" is no different than "I've seen mermaids", and miracles are defined to infer an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, they are irrational by definition.

So you either didn't understand what you claimed, or you didn't understand my response?

 

[Kenny]

Yes. and?

Again, do you think that the same moral considerations are applicable to both a three years old girl, and a one hour old embryo? Probably you approve the death penalty for murder. Do you think we should execute girls who took the day after pill, causing the termination of a few hours old embryo, for instance? If not, why not, since they are all human lives with exactly the same value?

Ciao

- viole

Strawman? Moving goal posts? is it because I showed that your position wasn't a good one?

 

[Kenny]

Nope, still not clear on what you are disagreeing with sorry?




What is, you'll need to offer something cogent sorry, not generic unevidenced assertions.



That makes no sense in this context?

You said:

Then I responded with:



So you either didn't understand what you claimed, or you didn't understand my response?

Get back to me when you have real questions and substantive answers.

 

[Sheldon]

Get back to me when you have real questions and substantive answers.

So you have backed yourself into a corner again and have no answers beyond a rather juvenile piece of hand waving, yet again. It seems you want to preach and make claims, but have zero interest in debating anything offered in refutation.

Intercessory prayer has never been demonstrated with any testable objective evidence to have any discernible effect, and when it has been properly tested, like the double blind clinical trials I mentioned and earlier linked, the results showed it had no discernible effect.

All you appear to have in response is handwaving denials, subjective anecdotal claims, risible suggestion to Google miracles, at least one known logical fallacy, and now finally a rather petty and transparent ad hominem. I can only draw one reasonable inference from these responses.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
No that is disingenuous, there is sufficient objective evidence that oncological treatments work. No one has been able to demonstrate any objective evidence for prayer, let alone anything comparable to the medical evidence for oncological treatments.

Again, I disagree and you probably don't understand the parameters because you don't believe in it.

You don't think oncological treatments are efficacious? Seriously?

You think there is objective evidence that intercessory prayer works, that is comparable the evidence for oncological treatments?

What good is a double blind clinical test if you are using the wrong product or using it improperly?

What flaw as in the test methods exactly? How was it "using the wrong product" exactly? This is what you always do, just resort to handwaving denials.

You ought to google "verified medical miracles" Objective, empirical and verifiable.

Why? I can Google evidence for mermaids, the results wouldn't be objective evidence for mermaids, or perhaps you think it would? Maye you genuinely don't see the difference between a subjective anecdotal claim and testable falsifiable objective evidence?

 

[Kenny]

So you have backed yourself into a corner again and have no answers beyond a rather juvenile piece of hand waving, yet again. It seems you want to preach and make claims, but have zero interest in debating anything offered in refutation.

No... I just don't answer irrational and unsupported statements (which you so commonly give). Thus... get back to me when you have something substantive.