"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[mighty_duck]

But my point was that killing any human is just as much an intrinsic wrong and it carries consequences you don't want as a society.

I realize that, and understand your position.

But did you understand my point?

BTW, let me double check your beliefs here. You believe a zygote is a human, but we can kill it anyway because it isn't a person.

Yes. People have rights.
Cells are not people.

Also, you know your line is blurry, but you feel it is clear enough to stand legally.

Yes. Many laws which determine a clear but arbitrary line in the sand have a blurry principle behind them.

The principle behind legal age of voting is cognitive development. When exactly a person is developed enough to be able to vote is blurry. We address that by using a reasonable standard, and drawing an arbitrary line in the sand at 18 years of age.

We do the same for drinking and driving (not at the same time, mind you).

You also agree my line is clear, but violating rights of one party must lead us wait until the other party has developed greater rights.

Not quite. Your line is clear, but I disagree with the principle behind choosing it. And it leads to similar results as any arbitrary line - ie an ovum that has a sperm enter it but has not yet fully fused its DNA is not a person, while a second later it is a person.

Telling a woman she no longer has the right to determine who or what can access her body is something we shouldn't take lightly. I don't feel that saving the life of a brainless zygote is a justifiable reason to violate that right.

 

[LKmommy]

My God, if I had one, would be different. Human "persons" would only emerge as and when the central nervous system had developed sufficiently with a body that was able to contain it..

My God would be a rather more loving and caring kind of god than yours.

You otoh live your life apparently as a willing slave to an invisible destroyer of two thirds of humanity, and then you criticise those who simply want to be able to make their own choices about it all and not to be compelled to go along with your version.

For someone who claims they have no belief in a deity, you sure hold some fantasies/thoughts about yours "if you had one." I think you have been deceived by the greatest deceiver of all. You talk about a "fantasy God who would do this or that" you talk about YOU being the supreme guage for what all are measured to be meaningful and living lives with dignity? :chuckle:

No, I bat for the rights of individual persons, not potential ones, to lead meaningful lives with dignity.

You did not answer my question Alwight. You shucked it. Dodged it and then came right back with your quick retort of what a "dignant life is". YOu know what I meant and you refused to answer so I will give you one more attempt. My original response so you do not try to derail my sincere question to you which came first:

And if that individual does NOT lead what you call a "meaningful dignant life" then what does someone like you do?
How does one become meaningful and dignant in your atheist world?
What standard are you going by for "meaningful and dignant"? Who makes that determination who is meaningful and dignant and has "a right to life" in your world of thinking?

EDIT since Alwaight wants to play silly games:
What does a "meaningful life" mean to YOU Alwight? What are the criteria for your "meaningful life" definition? Who determines the criteria (solely you, solely an individual, solely a mob that rules with violence)?

I ask the last regarding your definition of dignity because I can not assume you mean what a dictionary says as evidenced by your calling yourself an Atheist. Atheist: one who belives there is no deity. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist?show=0&t=1361227819 derived from Atheos (G) to mean without God.

You otoh live your life apparently as a willing slave to an invisible destroyer of two thirds of humanity, and then you criticise those who simply want to be able to make their own choices about it all and not to be compelled to go along with your version.

You sure to seem to have some strong beliefs and MISCONCEPTIONS of my God. Who taught you/told you about "an invisible destroyer of humanity" being the God that is spoken of in the Bible?Hmmm the great deceiver and accuser?:devil:

What is dignity to you? To have a life of dignity means (what to you Alwight)? AH, I saw you slip it is based on "real evidence". You question God. I question man ie. scientists, people with hidden agendas and who stands to benefit from it or be wrongly and innocently murdered because of "it." NM, the doctors and all their fancy equipment that were completely wrong about my child whom they were so quick to offer termination.

Perhaps you will first explain what "dignant" means, I've never heard of it least never used it.
If you mean to have "dignity" then doing what you personally think is for the best based on real evidence, rather than simply adhering to a doctrine or being unquestioningly subservient would be a reasonable start imo.

An unborn child in the womb is a human with a right to life. It is innocent. If a womans body rejects, expels, or terminates the pregnancy then so be it. You talk about research, evidence, etc. Then surely you know there are many reasons that a baby can be miscarried without pointing such a vicious finger at "something you claim you dont believe in".

To continue beyond what I have already said is like Matthew 7:6 I think you are deceived. P.S. My God, He has not given up on you as long as you walk this earth. I have not either Alwight, I am just off to cook dinner and watch some tv. Good day!

 

[LKmommy]

There is no justification for abortion, god created the person and you are destroying what god created, you are not only defying god you are murdering someone

Agreed.

and you will go to hell for it.

I disagree on the last part. If someone commits a sin no matter what sin it is, I do not think their "salvation" is on the line.
That sounds like some Catholicsm, excommunication and straight to the lake of fire period.

Either one fully believes and accepts Jesus' DBR or they think they do but fool only themselves. Just because one "claims to know and accept" does not mean He will recognize them. The works vs osas argument is on another thread, it is an interesting read Shannon! I tend to lean on the OSAS side myself.

 

[mighty_duck]

An unborn child in the womb is a human with a right to life. It is innocent. If a womans body rejects, expels, or terminates the pregnancy then so be it.

Have you ever given money to charity? To help the poor? Heal sick kids? Help the hungry or starving?

You wouldn't blow that off by saying "so be it", "or that is God's will". Would you?

And yet here is a condition that kills 2 out of every 3 "babies" in the world. If you really held the position that a zygote is baby - you should be spending a lot more energy fighting the greatest epidemic humanity has ever faced - think how many babies can be saved with increased research in to spontaneous abortion.

 

[Alate_One]

A one celled zygote is a complete human. Why shouldn't it get the same rights? It isn't assertion, it's a logical conclusion.

A zygote isn't complete any more than a set of instructions to build a car is a complete car. It's a completely illogical conclusion. A dead body/brain dead person IS actually a complete person, why shouldn't it get the same rights?

As irrelevant as this is to the discussion, what is amazing is that a woman's body knows when there is a fertilized egg getting ready to implant.

Actually the female body doesn't "know" anything.

The release of an egg and thickening of uterine lining are usually well timed, but they can become mistimed and the female body has no way of changing chemistry by detecting a fertilized egg. Zygotes don't implant until 10 days after fertilization at which point they are called blastocysts. These balls of 100 differentiated cells will attempt to implant into anything, given a chance, that's the source of ectopic pregnancies.

Unfortunately because of human physiology, unimplanted blastocysts will be flushed away after only a few days of delay. Did you know this isn't true for most other mammals? Most other mammals DO respond to implantation by thickening the lining of the uterus We don't, we thicken it ahead of time and if the embryo is slightly mis-timed - adios.

In fact it would be possible for a man to sustain a pregnancy because a zygote could implant into his tissues (if his immune system were properly suppressed)- problem is it would probably kill him because only uterine tissues are normally capable of forming and then breaking the complex connections with the fetus.

Despite the failure of drug prohibition, there would not be a huge black market for these chemicals because women don't want to take them *now* when they are easy to get and relatively cheap.

Huh? What are you talking about? Huge numbers of women are on "the pill". It is the number one source of contraception.

Despite the ease of taking a morning after pill, women prefer to get "surprised" and go through some very expensive and invasive surgery to get rid of their babies.

Not true. Huge numbers of people are using the morning after pill.

This was reported just a few days ago. I guess you don't pay attention.

A study by researchers at the National Center for Health Statistics found that 11 percent of "sexually experienced" women between the ages of 15 and 44 said they had used one of the four brands of emergency contraceptive pills approved by the FDA between 2006 and 2010. In 2002, only four percent said they had. The survey, which is the first of its kind to look specifically at use of the pills, also found that most women aren't using them as a substitute for regular birth control. Of those who reported having used emergency contraception between 2006 and 2010, 59 percent said they had used it only once, and 24 percent twice. Only 17 percent said they had used it three or more times.

Thus, they will either have the baby or modify their behavior if the option of killing the innocent baby is not available in most cases. Sure, there will be a black market for abortifacients, but it won't be a big market like the market that is the cause of imprisonment of 1/2 the federal prison population.

Just what we need, another reason to throw people in jail. The pill isn't an abortifacient, neither are most of the other forms of hormonal contraception. they *may* have a slight chance of causing an embryo to fail to implant.

Of course, none of these ludicrous things will be done. It will probably be similar to what is being done in places that already make illegal the killing of innocent humans before they are born. Probably similar to before killing innocent humans before they are born was legal in this country. What were we doing then?

Letting women die in the streets and having tons of abortions regardless. If you're not going to police it appropriately, why bother?

 

[Alate_One]

It means banning a few drugs. We bans drugs all the time. :idunno: You cannot convince us that the offspring of a man and a woman is not another human being. Asserting the baby is not a baby over and over doesn't make it true.

And asserting a single cell is the same as a baby over and over isn't going to make it true either.

..therefore murdering the tiniest of innocent babies is OK in your book?

A zygote isn't a baby and it's hard to "murder" a single cell. The thing is, even the "drugs" as you call them that I listed only have a *chance* of causing an embryo to fail to implant, nobody is actually certain. So really you're banning something over a possibility of causing "death" of something that only you assert is a human being. Talk about a waste of time. And you'd tell women they simply couldn't use modern reproductive technology, on that off chance that maybe a few zygotes might fail to implant.

That's why these graphics exist.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

So in other words you have no intention of actually enforcing any protections against zygotes.

Arguments from consequence aren't rational.

They're the basis of public policy formation.

Try to have a rational discussion instead of ranting hysterically. :up:

I'm just taking your assertions about the value of zygotes to their logical conclusion. If you ACTUALLY want to save them all, that's exactly what you'd have to do. But apparently you don't actually care about saving them.

 

[Stripe]

And asserting a single cell is the same as a baby over and over isn't going to make it true either.

I know. That is why I give good reasons for what I believe. :up:

A zygote isn't a baby and it's hard to "murder" a single cell.

Sorry. Repeated assertion doesn't change the facts.

The thing is, even the "drugs" as you call them that I listed only have a *chance* of causing an embryo to fail to implant, nobody is actually certain.

And when huntsmen randomly fire shots off into the forest at every sound and movement they cannot be certain that what they are shooting at is another hunt. So that justifies their actions, right?

So really you're banning something over a possibility of causing "death" of something that only you assert is a human being.

:idunno:

Feel free to talk sensibly about the issue instead of venting.

Talk about a waste of time. And you'd tell women they simply couldn't use modern reproductive technology, on that off chance that maybe a few zygotes might fail to implant. That's why these graphics exist.

Those graphics just save you the time inventing more straw men to beat up.

So in other words you have no intention of actually enforcing any protections against zygotes.

Nope. Try reading what I wrote.

They're the basis of public policy formation.

And maybe one day you'll realise that public policy is not what people of truth and righteousness are interested in. And you're a hypocrite. You do not abide by public policy when it comes to homo marriage.

I'm just taking your assertions about the value of zygotes to their logical conclusion. If you ACTUALLY want to save them all, that's exactly what you'd have to do. But apparently you don't actually care about saving them.

Quit ranting and engage rationally. :up:

 

[LKmommy]

Have you ever given money to charity? To help the poor? Heal sick kids? Help the hungry or starving?

Yes and?

You wouldn't blow that off by saying "so be it", "or that is God's will". Would you?

I certanily would NOT support people who think it is "ok" and just a personal choice to kill an unborn child!

And yet here is a condition that kills 2 out of every 3 "babies" in the world. If you really held the position that a zygote is baby - you should be spending a lot more energy fighting the greatest epidemic humanity has ever faced - think how many babies can be saved with increased research in to spontaneous abortion.

Thank you Mighty Duck for telling me where to donate....think how many babies could be saved through research? :dunce: Think how many babies could be saved if it was not legal to kill babies.

PS. I have had a miscarriage so your above paragraph is way out of line with whre my morals are and where you "think" they should be. I have also had TWO very very premature babies because of MY body.

I donate often to March of Dimes AND I do the annual event walk and have every year since my first was born minus the period it fell when I was pregnant on bed rest..... Is that satisfactory enough for you?

 

[Alate_One]

I know. That is why I give good reasons for what I believe. :up:

Funny, you haven't posted any of them (ever that I recall).

Sorry. Repeated assertion doesn't change the facts.

Really? When did you post facts?

And when huntsmen randomly fire shots off into the forest at every sound and movement they cannot be certain that what they are shooting at is another hunt. So that justifies their actions, right?

Hardly an appropriate analogy. Women use birth control to prevent pregnancy, most of the time it stops ovulation and fertilization. Occasionally, maybe, they might stop a zygote from implanting.

A proper analogy would be if a hunter ever shoots a person accidentally while hunting for deer, that means we should ban all firearms of the type that was used.

And maybe one day you'll realise that public policy is not what people of truth and righteousness are interested in. And you're a hypocrite. You do not abide by public policy when it comes to homo marriage.

I don't know what you're talking about here.

Quit ranting and engage rationally. :up:

You might want to take your own advice from time to time. Give rational reasons for your position(s) for a change, it might be interesting.

 

[LKmommy]

Not true. Huge numbers of people are using the morning after pill.

This was reported just a few days ago. I guess you don't pay attention.

A study by researchers at the National Center for Health Statistics found that 11 percent of "sexually experienced" women between the ages of 15 and 44 said they had used one of the four brands of emergency contraceptive pills approved by the FDA between 2006 and 2010. In 2002, only four percent said they had. The survey, which is the first of its kind to look specifically at use of the pills, also found that most women aren't using them as a substitute for regular birth control. Of those who reported having used emergency contraception between 2006 and 2010, 59 percent said they had used it only once, and 24 percent twice. Only 17 percent said they had used it three or more times.

Well thank you for bringing us all up to speed with the sad facts only 59% potentially killed a baby just once, hey only 24% just twice, and the "it really is ok to kill unborn babies with the ease of a pill" 17%.

Desensitization of what is actually occurring. Heck with the "old days" of walking past protestors to get that baby sucked out of the womb *tada* a pill to further ease the blow of murder.:rain:

Alate, what will you ever do when someone decides you are too much of a burden on them ie. your family members, neighbors, or the government?

Do you support assisted suicides?

 

[Alate_One]

Well thank you for bringing us all up to speed with the sad facts only 59% potentially killed a baby just once, hey only 24% just twice, and the "it really is ok to kill unborn babies with the ease of a pill" 17%.

Desensitization of what is actually occurring. Heck with the "old days" of walking past protestors to get that baby sucked out of the womb *tada* a pill to further ease the blow of murder.:rain:

The morning after pill might stop implantation (there's little evidence to say it does), but it certainly doesn't cause abortion.

The primary mechanism of action of combined estrogen-progestogen emergency contraceptive pills is to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation.[3] The primary mechanism of action of progestogen-only emergency contraceptive pills is to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation.[3][39][42][116][117][118] The best available evidence is that they do not have any post-fertilization effects such as the prevention of implantation.[3][39][42][116][117][118] The European EMA-approved labels and the U.S. FDA-approved labels for levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills (based on labels for regular oral contraceptive pills) both say they may cause endometrial changes that discourage implantation.[119][120][121] Daily use of regular oral contraceptive pills can alter the endometrium (although this has not been proven to interfere with implantation), but the isolated use of a levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pill does not have time to alter the endometrium.[119] In March 2011, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) issued a statement that: "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Language on implantation should not be included in LNG ECP product labeling."[119][122] In June 2012, a New York Times editorial called on the FDA to remove from the label the unsupported suggestion that levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills inhibit implantation.[123]

From the Wiki article

Alate, what will you ever do when someone decides you are too much of a burden on them ie. your family members, neighbors, or the government?

Do you support assisted suicides?

And assisted suicide has what to do with preventing a fertilized egg from implanting? Adults being a burden are never the same thing as actually putting strain on a mother's body, they can always get help from someone else, if others are willing to help.

 

[Stripe]

This is a child. This isn't.

Asserting yourself when you assert death is the argument of a totalitarian monster.

 

[LKmommy]

First and foremost Alate Nice picture though I disagree with you.
That "cluster of cells" you refer to is a human being in its early stages of growth and formation.

The morning after pill can stop implantation, but it doesn't cause abortion.

The primary mechanism of action of combined estrogen-progestogen emergency contraceptive pills is to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation.[3] The primary mechanism of action of progestogen-only emergency contraceptive pills is to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation.[3][39][42][116][117][118] The best available evidence is that they do not have any post-fertilization effects such as the prevention of implantation.[3][39][42][116][117][118] The European EMA-approved labels and the U.S. FDA-approved labels for levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills (based on labels for regular oral contraceptive pills) both say they may cause endometrial changes that discourage implantation.[119][120][121] Daily use of regular oral contraceptive pills can alter the endometrium (although this has not been proven to interfere with implantation), but the isolated use of a levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pill does not have time to alter the endometrium.[119] In March 2011, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) issued a statement that: "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Language on implantation should not be included in LNG ECP product labeling."[119][122] In June 2012, a New York Times editorial called on the FDA to remove from the label the unsupported suggestion that levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills inhibit implantation.[123]

From the Wiki article

Great marketing for the college kids and the teens who are having sex....."I am not really killing killing it just taking away it's foundation sort of maybe."

It will be interesting to see those numbers in 5 years. Just like taking an aspirin for a hangover, no big deal.

And assisted suicide has what to do with preventing a fertilized egg from implanting?

Desensitization to moral thinking. Do not move to Washington State or Oregon Alate. For someone so up on trends and research debates among doctors you should be aware of the "slippery slopes" that are being debated currently. (Perhaps I will link that on a new thread).

Adults being a burden are never the same thing as actually putting strain on a mother's body, they can always get help from someone else, if others are willing to help.

And so could a pregnant person if they were willing to LOOK for those Churches, agencies, and services to assist them in medical, housing, et all, instead of rushing to a clinic or pharmacy.

 

[Alate_One]

Asserting yourself when you assert death is the argument of a totalitarian monster.

Because you know, killing a single cell is murder, so if you kill lots of them, you're Hitler. Exfoliating bath = Hitler. Stick a fork in this one, it's done.

 

[Alate_One]

First and foremost Alate Nice picture though I disagree with you.
That "cluster of cells" you refer to is a human being in its early stages of growth and formation.

If that's a "human being", why aren't my sloughed skin cells human beings?

Great marketing for the college kids and the teens who are having sex....."I am not really killing killing it just taking away it's foundation sort of maybe."

If you read the mode of action, the medications are not even thought to block implantation. *Maybe* it could, but why assume so in the absence of evidence. Why call a group of cells a baby? To my mind it demeans the baby.

Desensitization to moral thinking. Do not move to Washington State or Oregon Alate. For someone so up on trends and research debates among doctors you should be aware of the "slippery slopes" that are being debated currently. (Perhaps I will link that on a new thread)

And so could a pregnant person if they were willing to LOOK for those Churches, agencies, and services to assist them in medical, housing, et all, instead of rushing to a clinic or pharmacy.

Because you know, sitting through 9 months of *unwanted* pregnancy when you could just prevent fertilization with a pill is a fantastic idea.

It's another thing if you've actually become pregnant, but contraception is intended as just that, preventing conception. Do you think every egg must be fertilized now too?

 

[Nick M]

since Alwaight wants to play silly games:what does a "meaningful life" mean to YOU Alwight? What are the criteria for your "meaningful life" definition? Who determines the criteria (solely you, solely an individual, solely a mob that rules with violence)?

It is his arbitrary selection. He would kill all those that honor God if he could. Yes, I just said that. Alwight is a God hating pervert.

 

[Nick M]

If that's a "human being", why aren't my sloughed skin cells human beings?

:mock: late one....speaking of hell bound perverts.

 

[Stripe]

Because you know, killing a single cell is murder, so if you kill lots of them, you're Hitler. Exfoliating bath = Hitler. Stick a fork in this one, it's done.

You're one sick individual. Have you zero capacity for compassion and empathy?

The conception of a baby is a billion miles from a skin cell.

 

[Silent Hunter]

The Bible tells us to excute wicthes,gays etc.That is justified because god tells us to.

Save the baby so you can execute it later . . . some deity you worship . . . :sigh:.

 

[alwight]

My God, if I had one, would be different. Human "persons" would only emerge as and when the central nervous system had developed sufficiently with a body that was able to contain it..

Quote:

My God would be a rather more loving and caring kind of god than yours.

Quote:

You otoh live your life apparently as a willing slave to an invisible destroyer of two thirds of humanity, and then you criticise those who simply want to be able to make their own choices about it all and not to be compelled to go along with your version.

[For someone who claims they have no belief in a deity, you sure hold some fantasies/thoughts about yours "if you had one."I think you have been deceived by the greatest deceiver of all. You talk about a "fantasy God who would do this or that" you talk about YOU being the supreme guage for what all are measured to be meaningful and living lives with dignity? :chuckle:

It isn’t particularly clear to me why all this requires bolding, perhaps you should save it for something important? However I think you should show me exactly where I ever claimed to be “the supreme” anything. :liberals:
I think your God is just as much a fantasy as my own btw.

No, I bat for the rights of individual persons, not potential ones, to lead meaningful lives with dignity.

You did not answer my question Alwight. You shucked it. Dodged it and then came right back with your quick retort of what a "dignant life is". YOu know what I meant and you refused to answer so I will give you one more attempt. My original response so you do not try to derail my sincere question to you which came first:

Look “dignant” isn’t an English word, so by all means try again, ask me a question in English and I will try to respond honestly. Perhaps your response here however is only your bolded bluster, perhaps not having any other response?

And if that individual does NOT lead what you call a "meaningful dignant life" then what does someone like you do?
How does one become meaningful and dignant in your atheist world?
What standard are you going by for "meaningful and dignant"? Who makes that determination who is meaningful and dignant and has "a right to life" in your world of thinking?

EDIT since Alwaight wants to play silly games:
What does a "meaningful life" mean to YOU Alwight? What are the criteria for your "meaningful life" definition? Who determines the criteria (solely you, solely an individual, solely a mob that rules with violence)?

That would be perhaps something for another time and thread, however here I’ll simply consider myself told that without your particular version of God my life is empty and without meaning, happy?

I ask the last regarding your definition of dignity because I can not assume you mean what a dictionary says as evidenced by your calling yourself an Atheist. Atheist: one who belives there is no deity. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...0&t=1361227819 derived from Atheos (G) to mean without God.

Again a diversion perhaps, but no you are wrong imo, theists believe in at least one god while atheists do not. Atheists are generally those without a belief in a god, not that they know there are none. If you don’t like how I define myself by the word “atheist” then just consider me to be a disbeliever in your specific God while evidence is lacking. I don’t know that your God doesn’t exist which afaic doesn’t therefore mean that your God or any god does exist, I simply presume not while without evidence.

You otoh live your life apparently as a willing slave to an invisible destroyer of two thirds of humanity, and then you criticise those who simply want to be able to make their own choices about it all and not to be compelled to go along with your version.

You sure to seem to have some strong beliefs and MISCONCEPTIONS of my God. Who taught you/told you about "an invisible destroyer of humanity" being the God that is spoken of in the Bible?Hmmm the great deceiver and accuser. :devil:

You think I’m Old Nick perhaps? :chuckle:
Not for the first time does a religionist resort to their doctrine and dogma when bereft of reason and rational response.

What is dignity to you? To have a life of dignity means (what to you Alwight)? AH, I saw you slip it is based on "real evidence". You question God. I question man ie. scientists, people with hidden agendas and who stands to benefit from it or be wrongly and innocently murdered because of "it." NM, the doctors and all their fancy equipment that were completely wrong about my child whom they were so quick to offer termination.

Again I struggle to understand you, are you telling me about your child, do you not trust medical science, have you some real first hand personal experience?
Without any specific details of course I can’t really comment. However I personally know of lives that would arguably at least have been far better spent bringing up complete and healthy children rather than those who where not, who all suffered dreadfully and chronically. Does that count too?
What of the potential lives of those that might have been in place of say congenital dysfunction? Is it not a matter of personal choice whether sometimes something can and should be done for the best if such future problems might be prevented? Of course the wrong choices can be made, we are only human.

Perhaps you will first explain what "dignant" means, I've never heard of it least never used it.
If you mean to have "dignity" then doing what you personally think is for the best based on real evidence, rather than simply adhering to a doctrine or being unquestioningly subservient would be a reasonable start imo.

An unborn child in the womb is a human with a right to life. It is innocent. If a womans body rejects, expels, or terminates the pregnancy then so be it. You talk about research, evidence, etc. Then surely you know there are many reasons that a baby can be miscarried without pointing such a vicious finger at "something you claim you dont believe in".

Then you miss my point that it is something that you believe in, not me. A God that oversees human souls being created at conception and immediately disposed of as a matter of course is what you believe in. My albeit godless version and other people’s more godly one is that during pregnancy a “person” will, at some point, exist with a very good chance of survival, but not until after the foetus has established itself.

To continue beyond what I have already said is like Matthew 7:6 I think you are deceived. P.S. My God, He has not given up on you as long as you walk this earth. I have not either Alwight, I am just off to cook dinner and watch some tv. Good day!

:e4e: