Evidence for God from Science

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:20 pm Guys, you know how liberals sometimes question the sincerity of the anti-abortion movement's insistence that they're pro-life?

It's because comments like "Keep your damn legs shut" and "If the only one to decide whether a child is born is the woman and no one else, then why would it NOT be SOLELY her responsibility?" make it seem as though you're at least as interested in controlling women as you are in preventing abortions. We figure that if you really, sincerely gave a [poop] you'd be talking about prenatal and postnatal care, pediatricians, day care, preschool, nutrition and the like, but for some reason you open with "if you do the crime you do the time" and never seem to get any further. It makes it seem like you want the woman to carry to term as punishment for her licentious ways and you lose interest as soon as you know she didn't get away with whoring around.

Perhaps that's not how you actually feel, but it's the strong impression I get from guys in the "pro-life" movement in general, and from you two in particular.

Hold on a second here Ed.
If the ONLY person that has a right to decide on the outcome of a pregnancy is the woman, why would the male be responsible ???
That doesn't make any sense, sorry.
If the male has no say on wither she has the baby or not, then why is he responsible ???

There are TWO sides to this argument:
That CHOICE is the ONLY factor and as such ONLY the WOMAN can decide.
OR
Taking a life MUST be justified and simply CHOOSING to do so is NOT an option.

A woman and a man have sex and she gets pregnant.
He wants the baby, she does not.
She kills it, he has NO SAY in the matter even though he is responsible for creating that life.
A man and a woman have sex, she gets pregnant, even though the man said that he doesn't want children.
She decides to keep it and HE is responsible.

What now ??

Now, as a Christian I agree that the man is responsible, responsible in ALL aspects.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:30 am

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:36 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:58 pmIt’s the same argument that justified slavery. The slave was the master’s property. The unborn baby is part of the woman’s body. The slave wasn’t viewed as human in the same sense that the white man was human. The unborn baby isn’t viewed as human in the same sense that the mother is human.

Slavery was morally wrong, so resistance to slavery was just and noble. You want your cause to be viewed as just and noble as well, so you're trying to connect the two. Except that slaves often aborted their own pregnancies as an act of defiance against masters who wanted to use them as breeding stock. Surely those abortions were just and noble, too, being that they were undertaken for the just and noble cause of resistance to slavery? If they were then it follows that abortion can be the best choice. If they weren't then you're in some pretty sketchy company...

Also, comparing the experience of an enslaved person to that of a six week old fetus is spurious. The enslaved person is a person, out in the world, suffering the cruelty and injustice of bondage and forced labor. The six week old fetus is approximately the size of a lima bean and has not yet developed a brain. You're conflating a human being with a potential human being, and in the process devaluing and trivializing the experiences that slaves actually endured.

Is it alive Ed?

Is it alive Ed?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:39 pm

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:20 pm Guys, you know how liberals sometimes question the sincerity of the anti-abortion movement's insistence that they're pro-life?

It's because comments like "Keep your damn legs shut" and "If the only one to decide whether a child is born is the woman and no one else, then why would it NOT be SOLELY her responsibility?" make it seem as though you're at least as interested in controlling women as you are in preventing abortions. We figure that if you really, sincerely gave a [poop] you'd be talking about prenatal and postnatal care, pediatricians, day care, preschool, nutrition and the like, but for some reason you open with "if you do the crime you do the time" and never seem to get any further. It makes it seem like you want the woman to carry to term as punishment for her licentious ways and you lose interest as soon as you know she didn't get away with whoring around.

Perhaps that's not how you actually feel, but it's the strong impression I get from guys in the "pro-life" movement in general, and from you two in particular.

Hold on a second here Ed.
If the ONLY person that has a right to decide on the outcome of a pregnancy is the woman, why would the male be responsible ???
That doesn't make any sense, sorry.
If the male has no say on wither she has the baby or not, then why is he responsible ???

Also, good way to attack the person and not the argument.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:20 pm Guys, you know how liberals sometimes question the sincerity of the anti-abortion movement's insistence that they're pro-life?

It's because comments like "Keep your damn legs shut" and "If the only one to decide whether a child is born is the woman and no one else, then why would it NOT be SOLELY her responsibility?" make it seem as though you're at least as interested in controlling women as you are in preventing abortions. We figure that if you really, sincerely gave a [poop] you'd be talking about prenatal and postnatal care, pediatricians, day care, preschool, nutrition and the like, but for some reason you open with "if you do the crime you do the time" and never seem to get any further. It makes it seem like you want the woman to carry to term as punishment for her licentious ways and you lose interest as soon as you know she didn't get away with whoring around.

Perhaps that's not how you actually feel, but it's the strong impression I get from guys in the "pro-life" movement in general, and from you two in particular.

One important life lesson that I constantly ingrained into my son when he was in elementary school, was about how the choices we make in life, have consequences. When we make good, responsible choices, the consequences of those choices are usually good. When we make irresponsible choices, then we have to deal with the consequences of those choices as well. It was a lesson about personal responsibility.

Now Ed, tell me how my elementary school age son seemed to grasp the concept of personal responsibility, but you and the left have a difficult time with it?

Instead of people being responsible for the choices they make, and taking ownership of those choices, you want the government, ie force the taxpayer to fund the poor choices that people won’t take responsibility for.

I guess the difference between conservatives and the left, is conservatives preach personal responsibility, and the left wants to force everyone else to pay for the bad choices that people make. And when conservatives say that people need to take responsibility themselves, we are accused of not caring.

And no Ed,

Carrying the baby she has, isn’t punishment. Remember, I’m the one who thinks human life is worth something? You know, I don’t want to kill an innocent unborn baby? Having a child is a blessing. My wife and I were only able to have one son, because she lost at least two other babies during pregnancy. So please don’t tell me that I think a woman is being punished by having her child live.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:01 pm My priorities are just fine, and I'm on the same page as about 80% of the country, as well as the medical and scientific communities. The claim that a fetus is a full on human being whose rights supercede those of its mother is just your opinion based on your religious beliefs. I think that that law is misogynistic, meddlesome, and cruel. It's not about life, it's about control. It's about radical, right wing religious fanatics trying to impose their own version of Sharia law on their neighbors.

You're projecting on to conservtives what liberals have done.You think conseevatives want to have a theocracy like you liberals have had for decades but you're wrong.We are all about the US Constitution and it is un-constitutional for the government to force its will on the American people as in the case of abortion.It is unconstitutional for the government to decide issues like this for the people.It is a States rights issue that THE PEOPLE decide,not the government. You can complain all you want to about the Alabama law but it is Constitutional and it is the way it is supposed to be done because the people voted for it and they decided it. This is exactly the way it is supposed to be done.Conservatives are not like you liberals at all we are all about POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE.You liberals are all about bypassing the the people and using the Government to force your liberal religious beliefs onto the rest of the American people using the Government to do it,which is an unconstitutional theocracy.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:39 pmHold on a second here Ed.
If the ONLY person that has a right to decide on the outcome of a pregnancy is the woman, why would the male be responsible ???
That doesn't make any sense, sorry.
If the male has no say on wither she has the baby or not, then why is he responsible ???

I'd be there with you if women were hydras.


A hydra in the process of reproduction

If that were the case then one might reasonably say "If you didn't want offspring then you shouldn't have budded!" And if I were the kind of hydra who felt that I had the right to impose my religious views on other hydras I might add "If you've already started budding then resorption is murder!"

But women aren't hydras and they don't reproduce asexually. They can only get pregnant with the help of a male. Males, or at least those who got evidence based sex education, are aware of that. Those who were raised properly also know that if sex results in pregnancy then the woman will have a decision to make - because it's her body - and the male will have to abide by it - because he caused the pregnancy. That's the contract. If you don't like it then keep it in your pants.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:48 pmIs it alive Ed?

I know anything other than an unequivocal "yes" is going to cheese you off, so take a breath.

It depends on how you define "alive." The fetus is directly connected to its mother and if you seperate the two prior to 21 weeks it dies, period. The odds of survival don't hit 50% until 25 weeks of gestation. Prior to viability I think that a fetus is alive in the same sense that a kidney is alive. If you seperate it from the mother's body it dies, and there's literally nothing that anybody can do about that.

As far as when a fetus becomes a human being, I guess I'd put that at viability as well. That's difficult because viability is a moving target - in 1973 the Supreme Court put it at 28 weeks, but today there's a slim chance of survival at 23 weeks (given immediate, extreme, and ongoing medical intervention, and bearing in mind that long term health problems are very likely).

I can deal with preventing abortion after viability, although my opinion is that it's an issue that should be between a woman and her doctor and no stranger or elected official should get a vote. Abortions prior to 22 weeks are already very rare, and of those that do occur almost all of them are medically necessary to protect the mother, so it's a much smaller issue than politicians and activists make it out to be. The vast majority of abortions in the US - over 90% - occur at about 13 weeks.

And I still insist that anyone who sincerely cares about life would pair their anti abortion efforts with pro women and children programs to decrease unwanted pregnancies (mandatory, fact based sex ed, easy access to contraception) and protect women and children (safe, affordable childcare, universal healthcare, job training, universal preschool, etc). If you butt into a stranger's life and demand that they live according to your beliefs then you have a responsibility to help them deal with the consequences of your meddling.

t depends on how you define "alive."

Science defines anything "alive" as a thing that is, alive. NOT dead.
It it weren't alive, she wouldn't be pregnant.
If the live fetus isn't human, what is it Ed?

But women aren't hydras and they don't reproduce asexually. They can only get pregnant with the help of a male. Males, or at least those who got evidence based sex education, are aware of that. Those who were raised properly also know that if sex results in pregnancy then the woman will have a decision to make - because it's her body - and the male will have to abide by it - because he caused the pregnancy. That's the contract. If you don't like it then keep it in your pants.

And that, folks, is why there are so many single mothers out there.
Tell the male he has the responsibility but NO SAY.
Sure, that has worked out so well so far...

ALL are responsible so ALL have a say.


Look, the taking of a life is a very serious thing and it needs to be take as such.
Simply saying that "this is my body and I can do whatever I want with it" doesn't work. It doesn't work when a person wants to self-harm, it doesn't work when a person is acting recklessly and it shouldn't work with another life is at stake.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:20 am Science defines anything "alive" as a thing that is, alive. NOT dead.
It it weren't alive, she wouldn't be pregnant.
If the live fetus isn't human, what is it Ed?

As I said, prior to viability a fetus is alive in the same sense that a kidney is alive. It's essentially an extension of the mother's body. Once it reaches viability and has the ability to function on its own - by which I mean pump its own blood, digest its own food, breathe its own air - that's when it becomes a human being. Killing a human being is murder. Aborting a fetus before it becomes a human being is not.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:34 amAnd that, folks, is why there are so many single mothers out there.

That's nonsense, Paul. Broke-ass deadbeats might use "It's not my problem, I wanted her to get an abortion" as an excuse to walk out, but that's about as far as that goes. The majority of single mothers are young and poor and the fathers are equally young and poor. The fathers walk away because they can and they don't know what else to do. The mothers stay because they don't really have a choice.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:30 amAbortions prior to 22 weeks are already very rare...

I said that backwards. My bad.

Abortions after 22 weeks make up about 1% of the total, and almost all of them are done as a matter of medical necessity.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:23 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:20 am Science defines anything "alive" as a thing that is, alive. NOT dead.
It it weren't alive, she wouldn't be pregnant.
If the live fetus isn't human, what is it Ed?

As I said, prior to viability a fetus is alive in the same sense that a kidney is alive. It's essentially an extension of the mother's body.

Let me jump in for a minute and disagree with this particular statement.

At a genetic level there is a very significant difference between a kidney (or any other body part of a woman) and a fetus.
A kidney has the DNA of the woman in question and is therefore a part of the woman's body.
The DNA of a fetus is different from the DNA of the mother, and regardless of whether it is viable or not it, a fetus is not a part of the mother's body.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:23 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:20 am Science defines anything "alive" as a thing that is, alive. NOT dead.
It it weren't alive, she wouldn't be pregnant.
If the live fetus isn't human, what is it Ed?

As I said, prior to viability a fetus is alive in the same sense that a kidney is alive. It's essentially an extension of the mother's body. Once it reaches viability and has the ability to function on its own - by which I mean pump its own blood, digest its own food, breathe its own air - that's when it becomes a human being. Killing a human being is murder. Aborting a fetus before it becomes a human being is not.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:34 amAnd that, folks, is why there are so many single mothers out there.

That's nonsense, Paul. Broke-ass deadbeats might use "It's not my problem, I wanted her to get an abortion" as an excuse to walk out, but that's about as far as that goes. The majority of single mothers are young and poor and the fathers are equally young and poor. The fathers walk away because they can and they don't know what else to do. The mothers stay because they don't really have a choice.

A fetus is NOT a kidney nor is it a lung or your skin, any live organ, why is that Ed?
Are you saying there is NO difference between a fetus and a kidney?
Is a fetus not human? if it isn't human, what species is it?

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:00 am

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:23 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:20 am Science defines anything "alive" as a thing that is, alive. NOT dead.
It it weren't alive, she wouldn't be pregnant.
If the live fetus isn't human, what is it Ed?

As I said, prior to viability a fetus is alive in the same sense that a kidney is alive. It's essentially an extension of the mother's body.

Let me jump in for a minute and disagree with this particular statement.

At a genetic level there is a very significant difference between a kidney (or any other body part of a woman) and a fetus.
A kidney has the DNA of the woman in question and is therefore a part of the woman's body.
The DNA of a fetus is different from the DNA of the mother, and regardless of whether it is viable or not it, a fetus is not a part of the mother's body.

I am sure he knows that, he simply doesn't care about that fact.