Creation vs. Evolution

[Kim]

US law isn't, at least not uniformly. But...if everyone agreed with UK law, there wouldn't be a US. LOL.

Mock as you will...... you know full well what i was saying.

How so? If something is living and you make it dead, it would seem as though you "took life".

It might "seem"....but that's according to you. If it's not viable, it's not yet individually living. A wart can grow. Are you telling me because it's growing i can't remove it without "taking life". Hell - by that definition I take life every time I eat something.

How are you defining "surviving on it's own". About 20 years lapsed between the birth of my children and the time when they were really "surviving on their own".

It's not my definition - it's from doctors. The time when an embryo can reasonably be considered to have truly independant life....and not be simply an extension of the mother.

In regards to law, the are plenty of laws that dictate how a parent must allocate resources and the level of care due a child by the parent. If our other resources are subject to dictates of law, what is so sacred about the womb?

Well seeing you argue about not wanting to spend YOUR money on any number of things you don't like or agree with, I'm not quite sure why you'd want to bring this one up. In any event - it's not a child until it's viable - see previous point.

Which takes precedence...a woman’s right to use her womb how she chooses or the child’s right to continue living. Legally, the question seems to have been answered...an answer that would seem to be inconsistent with much of our previously existing law. Much law, especially law regarding children, is aimed at protecting those who can't protect themselves.

A woman's right. She came first. She gets to decide.

God gave us Free Will right? That would appear to be what you want to deny to a woman who wants an abortion.

Oh....and if a country does prohibit abortion? People just go elsewhere. It's better than bleeding out in a backstreet because the knitting needles didn't work.

 

[Pirate Lady]

Believe in what you want to believe in. Enjoy life, it's precious gift, no matter how it originated.

 

[MikeFerrara]

To be honest, I am quietly confident that these changes will not be made as it would make the US educational system the laughing stock of the Western world.

there is plenty wrong with the US government schools system, IMO, starting with the concept of having a government run education.

I know most of the West cannot believe that the US educational system still has people challenging the teaching of evolution in school!!!

Things are challenged in the US because they can be.

Beyond that, as I said before, I think science should be taught in science class. The rest should be things like reading writing and arithmetic. But...we have all these groups who want to use the school system for other agendas.

We see things like the Chicago public schools bussing students to the state capitol to protest gun laws and the the Gay Day of Silence.

This is what we have going on in the government schools Hub Politics: Lexington's Gay Agenda LOL they can read "The king and king" but not Huck Finn.

 

[MikeFerrara]

It might "seem"....but that's according to you. If it's not viable, it's not yet individually living. A wart can grow. Are you telling me because it's growing i can't remove it without "taking life".

We're going to compare an unborn child to a wart?

Hell - by that definition I take life every time I eat something.

Of course you are?

It's not my definition - it's from doctors. The time when an embryo can reasonably be considered to have truly independant life....and not be simply an extension of the mother.

Got it...but the question isn't whether or not it's alive or whether or not it's a developing person. The legal question is when that person is entitled to rights and protections under the law.

Well seeing you argue about not wanting to spend YOUR money on any number of things you don't like or agree with, I'm not quite sure why you'd want to bring this one up.

I bring it up because it is.

God gave us Free Will right? That would appear to be what you want to deny to a woman who wants an abortion.

Doesn't all law regulate "free will"?

Oh....and if a country does prohibit abortion? People just go elsewhere.

Yes, and if you deny people recreational drugs, they just buy it on the street and use dirty needls. So?

It's better than bleeding out in a backstreet because the knitting needles didn't work.

Not for the unborn child it isn't.

 

[Sas]

Yes, and if you deny people recreational drugs, they just buy it on the street and use dirty needls. So?

So allow recreational drugs. *shrugs* Such an obvious solution.

Got it...but the question isn't whether or not it's alive or whether or not it's a developing person. The legal question is when that person is entitled to rights and protections under the law.

<snip>

Got it...but the question isn't whether or not it's alive or whether or not it's a developing person. The legal question is when that person is entitled to rights and protections under the law.

Well there is no legal question really in my country, it has been decided, the anti-abortion side lost. Abortions are allowed if the life of the mother is in danger and it is easy to obtain a doctor's consent saying so. I personally think abortions are a poor solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy but one that I believe people should have the right to decide on themselves. Having some Christians, such as yourself (mentioned earlier in this thread), argue against providing contraception to teenagers certainly doesn't help the abortion rate go down. The push for abstinence only education in the US (thankfully not the same where I am from) also contributes to the abortion rate so people who argue against it such as yourself are indirectly increasing the abortion rate. Teenagers will have sex, regardless of whether they have abstinence only education or are denied birth control, and as such many will have unwanted pregnancies and terminations. I would think if you are so anti-abortion you would be arguing for better sex ed and the provision of contraception to teenagers. I am interested to know why you argue the opposite then?

What is your solution to people having unwanted children Mike if you don't agree with abortion? And I want a realistic answer, not 'abstinence' as I hardly find that realistic.

Not for the unborn child it isn't.

How is an abortion in a back street alley better for an unborn fetus? Basically, if you make abortion illegal, the fetus dies, and so does the mother far more frequently than when abortion is legal and thus subject to quality control. So under your definition of a fetus as 'living' (note I used the word 'yours' as I do not agree with the definition but trying to argue on your terms) you would now have two deaths more often than you would have one. This has been shown by historical precedent.

 

[Thalassamania]

Which studies and how are you defining fighting back?
ok.

Your first line of defense is judgment...brains rather than brawn.

MIke, you know that I think your ideas about diving are spot on, but your views concerning rape are stone age.

What are you talking about and why? You make it sound as if no secular entity has ever committed a "transgression". You don't believe that, do you?

Of course secular entities have, but if you had to add it up since the dawn of history, I think you'd find that the religionists have done way more damage.

More Sam Harris...I'm not sure why you hold this Sam Harris in such high regard.

LOL, but to quote someone who is at least as much an authority as Sam Harris...Michael Savage "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

I don't quote Harris as an "authority," rather as someone who's said something better than I can. If your quoting Michael Savage as an "authority" I truly feel sorry for you.

...
I think Dawkins summed up my feelings best on people disagreeing with evolution "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."I really doubt any doubter of evolution here has actually read much to do with the theory given what people have been posting in creationism's defense. :11:

Hear! Hear!

...

How are you defining "surviving on it's own". About 20 years lapsed between the birth of my children and the time when they were really "surviving on their own".

Capable of independent life e.g., able to survive without a placenta. Your post is cute, but begs the point.

In regards to law, the are plenty of laws that dictate how a parent must allocate resources and the level of care due a child by the parent. If our other resources are subject to dictates of law, what is so sacred about the womb?

Which takes precedence...a woman&#8217;s right to use her womb how she chooses or the child&#8217;s right to continue living. Legally, the question seems to have been answered...an answer that would seem to be inconsistent with much of our previously existing law. Much law, especially law regarding children, is aimed at protecting those who can't protect themselves.

When you brush your teeth you kill more human cells than there are in a blastula, so is it OK to abort at that stage? Or should we all give up brushing our teeth?

I believe you hit the nail on the head. I reckon I'd be happy if Mike jumped in my foxhole under heavy fire.

Mike and Marvel are both wonderful people, and frankly it pains me to find this gap separating us, I have the feeling that if we can not find a way through this maze then I rather doubt anyone else can either.

 

[redacted]

Mike and Marvel are both wonderful people, and frankly it pains me to find this gap separating us, I have the feeling that if we can not find a way through this maze then I rather doubt anyone else can either.

I think it is a matter of accepting good people for who they are. I think we just have to understand and accept the differences. I doubt if anyone can reasonably be expected to make any major changes in this area. But civil discussion promotes understanding which is the key to accepting such differences.

 

[MikeFerrara]

MIke, you know that I think your ideas about diving are spot on, but your views concerning rape are stone age.

I'm not usre where I'm going wrong here because I don't think I've given any of my views on rape.

What I have given is a small part of my views on safety. The world (including our own back yards) can be a very dangerous place and if you trust your safety to the good nature of your fellow man, you could be in a lot of trouble.

Maybe someday, the criminally insane and all the folks who are just plain nasty will see the light but I wouldn't advise holding your breath. In the mean time, each of us needs a better plan than to sit and whine about the attitudes that the criminally insane people have toward us.

Of course secular entities have, but if you had to add it up since the dawn of history, I think you'd find that the religionists have done way more damage.

How are you measuring damage?

I don't quote Harris as an "authority," rather as someone who's said something better than I can. If your quoting Michael Savage as an "authority" I truly feel sorry for you.

Not to worry. LOL

Mike and Marvel are both wonderful people, and frankly it pains me to find this gap separating us, I have the feeling that if we can not find a way through this maze then I rather doubt anyone else can either.

We have already found a way through it. We may not agree on everything but I'm pretty certain that we're both going to survive it.

 

[Warthaug]

I think you have misunderstood my intent?

Quite possibly. I did reply after midnight, and after quite a few wobbly-pops...

I was basically just trying to point out how cruel it is to make something one has no control over, a sin.

But that's true for many of the sins. We don't magically find others unattractive when we get hitched, and as a consiquence we are essentially "programmed" to want to cheat. And yet cheating is a sin. Same goes with violence (fight-or-flight instinct), stealing, etc. All of those have a basic, biological driving factor behind them. And yet they are sins.

I don't really understand what you are getting at with your comment though.

And now that I re-read it with a fresh mind, I'm not really too sure what my point was either...

...probably some sort of a lesson in there somewhere

Bryan

 

[nereas]

...Well there is no legal question really in my country, it has been decided, the anti-abortion side lost. ...

That would seem to be the only logical solution in a secular constitutional political society.

Imposing unwanted religious values upon others would be the greater crime, no matter what the justification. A crime often comitted in pseudo-theocracies, today and throughout history.