Well, first off, Word didn't reply to one bit of my previous post, including my direct questions about condom use and other contraceptives. Oh well. Secondly, I'm just gonna go in order here, rather than trying to organise it, so read the whole thing or not at all. Yep, it's stupid long.
Word wrote:I'm not even arguing that a sperm or an egg cell is a baby - the united gametes contain everything needed for a fully developed organism.
A potential for life is not a life. At that point, it has every bit (actually, greater) the potential to fail. It is not a life; it has no thoughts, no feelings, no interests. It deserves no moral consideration.
and this is basically a moral question, believing in God plays a subordinated role here.
The act of a pre-viable abortion is,
in and of itself, NOT a moral issue, for the above reason; it's a value-neutral medical procedure. You consider it a moral question precisely because of your very particular theistic religious doctrine which claims existence of a soul, and infusion of that soul (ensoulment) at conception. But of course, this hasn't even always been the case, as the Catholic Church has at various points in history claimed ensoulment occurs at the quickening or even after the point of a fully-formed fetus, and has approved of abortion prior to that state. Unerring, unchanging, direct line to God, eh. Not even credible within your own religion, dude, nevermind reality.
The legitimate moral conversation centers not on the non-viable "unborn," but on the woman, and religious patriarchal men who seek to control her. And note, that's
woman, not
mother; she isn't yet a mother.
and there's always another option (adoption for example)
So the 9 months that the woman is forced to carry is irrelevant? Do you have any clue what it takes, what it entails—the toll on a woman's body, for part—to carry a pregnancy? You clearly do not. And, again, it's patriarchal sexual slavery to force that on a woman against her will.
And, again, while the anti-abortionists make a big deal about the supposed emotional trauma resulting from an abortion, they make no mention of that which results from carrying, delivering, and giving away an actual child. And, like I said, are typically "pro-life from conception until birth," then they're on their own, even if that means a high infant mortality rate awaits. You would rather a slow death of less than five years to an abortion.
But even if the eventual child might have a wonderful life, it's irrelevant because the body, life and choices of the actually existing mother are the real issue which you completely ignore. She is not aborting a life, a baby, a child, and it is not denying a life. There is no life to be denied. She is aborting an undeveloped, non-viable fetus, zygote, or embryo from her body. It is not your choice.
Nelhybel wrote:This thread was derailed by Phytotron, who injected anti-Christian sentiment into his post. Should hate speech go unchecked? I don't believe so...
First of all, a Billy Graham avatar? Good Halloween costume; he and his son are indeed demons. How's that for anti-Christian sentiment?
Secondly, to reiterate and expand on what Z-Man and sinewav already rightly said: It is a demonstrable fact that much of the anti-science mentality in this country is traceable to Christian fundamentalism, which views science as some giant conspiracy deliberately out to undermine said religion. To point that out is not "hate speech." For someone to rightly note that "creationism is religion, not science" is not "hate speech."
First, regarding creationism / evolution: you misinterpreted my relatively simple statement.
Nope, I understood it quite well, and your subsequent comments demonstrate that.
I did not make any comment regarding which is correct. I simply said that anybody who might not agree with consensus opinion (because that's what is is)
You see. Science is not opinion. It is not philosophy. Creationism (nor ID) is not on equal footing with science. To state that creationism doesn't belong in science is not an attack.
as the intellectual elite turn their attacks from objective ones into hate speech against Christianity.
Also false. If you reread my first response to your silliness, you'll get the same rebuttal. Reread that post, carefully. More below.
Second, regarding man's role in climate change: you again misinterpreted my relatively simple statement by totally disregarding half my sentence. I don't deny the climate changes - who does? Yesterday was sunny, today is rainy.
Which proves you don't know diddley squat about the subject. Weather is not climate. Learn the difference before you say anything else on the subject.
(not to mention the fact that there is plenty of evidence against the belief man is causing climate change).
Provide it, sourced from reputable scientific journals.
What I said was that people who oppose the belief that negative climate change is the direct result of man-kind
It's not a belief. It's well-established science. That's what you don't get. Science is not a matter of opinion or belief.
find themselves exposed to broad attacks regarding their morals and religion
Again, as with objections to evolution, the objections to man-made climate change are not scientific. Rather, they originate largely with the religious (even if they dress it up in scientistic-sounding language). The other source: fossil fuel corporations. That's it. So, once again, I refer you to my first response.
It happens every day, on these forums
Right, because these forums are representative of American society.
And literally every day.
on the news
You're joking, right?
in the classroom
Here you must also be joking. The religious right are the ones who have been attacking science curricula, with science teachers absolutely cowed by them, afraid to say anything that might be interpreted as the slightest bit offensive to creationists. You must honestly believe that the very act of teaching science properly is an attack on your religion. Guess what, that proves my point. You are an extremist.
in every day life.
Where? And drop the persecution complex. I know it's central to your religion, but it doesn't hold water with reality. And, why is it acceptable for Christians to attack science and scientists in every domain, but it's not OK for people who support science to offer a critique of that? You seem to have this notion that you get to parade around attacking science, but scientists and other folks can't rebut it. Hypocrite.
Nelhybel wrote:gimmieagoddamnbreak
Now now, don't blaspheme.
I also find it hilarious that you deleted the link in your signature about the "real purpose" of these forums, now that you've contradicted your manifesto on that subject by jumping in this thread to, apparently, proselytize.
Word wrote:I'm not advocating that mothers should be enforced to give birth
Um, yes you are.
it's not the embryo's fault that the mother was raped
Right, it's the mother's fault, isn't it.
In a wealthy society like ours there are a couple of institutions that do everything possible to make abortions unnecessary
And what institutions would those be? Certainly not the Catholic Church, since it opposes contraception, sterilization, and population reduction programs—those are what will reduce the need for abortions. And, once more, the option to abort is necessary. Unintended pregnancies happen, and there's nothing wrong—and oftentimes everything right—with terminating them.
The baby itself is rarely the reason for an abortion - it's the mother's psychological, or social circumstances.
Even if we stipulate that's true, so what? That's plenty of reason. It's not your decision to make. It doesn't even have to be any of these psychological, financial, or "social circumstances" reasons that people keep on giving. There are all kinds of good reasons to terminate a pregnancy. A simple unintended pregnancy is good enough reason. (And you Catholics would oppose use of contraceptives or sterilization to prevent unintended pregnancies.) Not wanting to go through carrying a pregnancy to fruition is a good enough reason. Heck, not wanting to get fat and develop saggy breasts is a good enough reason. It's not your decision to make.
sinewav wrote:Go ahead and continue believing evolution [is] opinion. That doesn't stop the cells in your body from mutating.
Psst, that's not how evolution works.
The DNA
within reproductive cells mutates.
syllabear wrote:Just gonna jump in quickly (and out after this post) and state that at least in the UK, and in many other countries there "has to be a good reason" for the abortion i.e. several reasons that are listed in this topic, not limited to danger to the mother/child, rape and foetal defects.
Perhaps you're thinking of late-term, post-viability abortion?
Word wrote:A caesarian section is an alternative to abortion.
What? It is not, you ninny. An abortion terminates a (usually) non-viable fetus, embryo, or zygote. A c-section is done primarily for delivery of a viable infant. A c-section is an alternative to vaginal birth, not abortion.
You're not trying to argue that a c-section as an
alternative method of abortion is acceptable, are you?
I'm not sure you know what the hell you're talking about. (Frankly, I'm not sure how much sex ed you've even had.)
And by the way, abortions have more, and worse risks [than c-sections]
Lies. Performed by a medical professional, most typical abortions (that is, not including particular complications) are extremely safe, and can be administered routinely on an out-patient basis in a clinic. It's when abortion is outlawed and women are forced to get "back alley" and "coat hanger" abortions that it becomes dangerous and deadly. That's right, abortion will continue even if you outlaw it, only then it will become dangerous, as it has been in the past.
And I'll tell you where c-sections really become an issue. When a company like Catholic Health Initiatives comes in and takes over even public hospitals and institutes draconian Catholic healthcare directives, which include prohibition on sterilization procedures like tubal ligations. When do a lot of women (who usually already have children) decide to have a tubal? Following a caesarian delivery, since it's a safe and convenient way to do it, without having to go in for a second surgery. But with CHD in place, they would have to be shipped to another hospital in order to get that done, which not only exposes a violation of her privacy, but also puts her at risk for something that's usually routine.
Encouragement of abortions is a symptom of a corrupt society
Bullshit. There's something extremely corrupt about fascistic, patriarchal, religious extremists who want to dictate women's reproductive health decisions.
Abortions are an indicator for misery and desperation
No they're not. They're an indication of a valid, sensible, sometimes very moral solution to an unintended pregnancy. The choice and availability of abortion is an indication of a humane society. Restricting abortion is inhumane.
you'd say the same about war crimes; or a plane that crashed on an island and whose passengers are all alive and become cannibals.
WTF? Seriously. WTF? What does that even mean?
[Africa has] lots of resources and water wouldn't be a problem with a better infrastructure.
Wow, you're so clueless.
And I missed (well, half-watched so couldn't fully enjoy) the first quarter and a half of Monday Night Football for this.
