New Abortion Law Wave

[cots]

Yes insanity. It is not blind faith, it's literally taking evidence as a basis, that is Science and everything else is BS. You fail to completely understand what Science is in your blindness for you to believe what you want to believe. You don't care what the truth is, you rather bend the truth to your beliefs rather than the other way around. Not taking evidence into account is the madness and the blind belief. You are literally saying to disregard reason, proof and evidence because there may be something better than truth - this is the definition of delusioness. You and these lawmakers are condemning people for life on the basis of you disregarding reason, proof and evidence - so yes this is madness or, malicious control of the population with poverty, if you disregard Hanlon's razor.

Nothing of this is "in the name of Science". Eisenhower bombed Japan for military / political reasons. Massive gun deaths in the US is a result of the economical incentive the NRA and gun makers have. The pharma industry goes off rail for monetary reasons as well. Etc.

Third world countries are a great example of what mislead human politics and religion can do. The belief that led to slavery that white people were superior to black people was religious alone, the Cruzades in northern Africa and later Jihad's were religiously driven. The spreading of AIDs in Central and South Africa are the result of the religious misonformation spread that condoms are bad.

Science has no will and makes no judgement or has any moral rule set. Again, you completely fail to have a grasp of what Science is.

Another "true believer". I chose not to believe. Label me what you will. Just don't try to change me - it's not going to happen.

 

[pustal]

Another "true believer". I chose not to believe. Label me what you will. Just don't try to change me - it's not going to happen.

You don't even realize the irony of what you just wrote, do you...?

 

[cots]

Nothing of this is "in the name of Science". Eisenhower bombed Japan for military / political reasons. Massive gun deaths in the US is a result of the economical incentive the NRA and gun makers have. The pharma industry goes off rail for monetary reasons as well. Etc.

Funny how you drew up examples of what I was referring to and I didn't even have to name them. Those things happened because of science and the way science was being used back then. Science enabled creating atomic weapons, science is used to justify the use of them just as the same way science is being used in the abortion argument. Science is used to create guns with, science is used to justify murdering with guns. You realize if you worship science so much that it can explain everything then according to that logic it should also be to blame for everything. Well, now we have abortions happening (you know, the mass murdering of unborn children) in the "name of science". You can't deny this fact as you simply need to read the replies in this thread - science is being used to justify abortions so it's happening "in the name of science". Same shit that has happened in the past. People don't seem to learn from their mistakes. So go ahead, worship your science and kill babies. You're sick in the head and nobody can fix stupid.

 

[pustal]

Funny how you drew up examples of what I was referring to and I didn't even have to name them. Those things happened because of science and the way science was being used back then. Science enabled creating atomic weapons, science is used to justify the use of them just as the same way science is being used in the abortion argument.

There is no comparable here. Science enabled us to split the atom, but what we used the splitting for is not of Science business. Science is the knowledge, humanity applies it regardless in the ways it chooses to. Poor choices as such aren't backed by Science, but greed, fear, malice, etc. Better yet, Science told us that there would be consequences for millennia to come for detonating the bombs and humanity disregarded it

In the abortion issue Science simply tells you there is nothing sentient there, no person yet, and the choice to still penalise it is simple disregarding the knowledge we have.

Science is used to create guns with, science is used to justify murdering with guns. You realize if you worship science so much that it can explain everything then according to that logic it should also be to blame for everything.

No, I don't know what is so difficult for you to grasp that Science has no will, it's simply the method of gathering knowledge. What you do with the knowledge it's your responsibility.

Well, now we have abortions happening (you know, the mass murdering of unborn children) in the "name of science".

No, I rather know it's not murder. I've shown you evidence that a fetus - that is not a child yet - has no sentience, the very core attribute of being a person, and therefore it isn't murder. That's the whole point.

You can't deny this fact as you simply need to read the replies in this thread - science is being used to justify abortions so it's happening "in the name of science".

Yes I can, and I have, and have presented evidence, again. You're whole "point" is that evidence doesn't matter to you because it goes against your gut feeling .There is no arguing against that, because there is no logic in that, you dwell outside the fields of logic, but that proves nothing to no one.

Same shit that has happened in the past. People don't seem to learn from their mistakes.

Yes it has, people disregarded evidence and made mistakes. And yes, people like you don't learn from history or science and will make mistakes again.

So go ahead, worship your science and kill babies. You're sick in the head and nobody can fix stupid.

Oh, I'm sick in the head? I'm not the one who negates facts willingly, on a self admitted delusion. I'm not the one who lives in such a hatred that want to imprision people for life when proven innocent of inflicting harm no anyone. And I'm certainly not the bigot in this conversation.

 

[cots]

No, I rather know it's not murder. I've shown you evidence that a fetus - that is not a child yet - has no sentience, the very core attribute of being a person, and therefore it isn't murder. That's the whole point.

So you're taking the information obtained by your science, which is man made, thus inaccurate and could change to anything over time to justify the fact that you're killing babies.

Could the information you're basing "what is life" on be inaccurate? Even if you answer "no" - which, by the way, is the wrong answer, you're still acting on science, and this action is killing an unborn baby. It's the same thing as people using the atomic bomb. You now admit it was wrong, and it's not sciences fault as science doesn't actually bomb the people - we do. So, could it be that science isn't to blame for abortions, but the people who are doing them? Of course, they are using science the justify their actions, which in all reality, the science is in a constant state of flux and is going to change. What won't change is the loss of life - you can't take it back.

Of course, you're disillusioned with your faith. I understand. I get it.

Heil Science! Kill babies!

 

[WeedZ]

So you're taking the information obtained by your science, which is man made, thus inaccurate and could change to anything over time to justify the fact that you're killing babies.

Could the information you're basing "what is life" on be inaccurate? Even if you answer "no" - which, by the way, is the wrong answer, you're still acting on science, and this action is killing an unborn baby. It's the same thing as people using the atomic bomb. You now admit it was wrong, and it's not sciences fault as science doesn't actually bomb the people - we do. So, could it be that science isn't to blame for abortions, but the people who are doing them? Of course, they are using science the justify their actions, which in all reality, the science is in a constant state of flux and is going to change. What won't change is the loss of life - you can't take it back.

Of course, you're disillusioned with your faith. I understand. I get it.

Heil Science! Kill babies!

So you're taking your stance on morality, which is man made, thus inaccurate and could change to anything over time to justify thinking controlling other people is ok.

 

[pustal]

So you're taking the information obtained by your science, which is man made, thus inaccurate and could change to anything over time to justify the fact that you're killing babies.

No.

1. Science is not inacurate;
2. Facts reviewed by Science are, in this case, not men-made;
3. Facts are immutable;
4. Again, you're killing it as much as an appendix

Could the information you're basing "what is life" on be inaccurate? Even if you answer "no" - which, by the way, is the wrong answer, you're still acting on science, and this action is killing an unborn baby.

I'm starting to think you are just a troll, because there is no way a normal person would go around like this.

1. I'm not debating or even base my arguments on the notion of life, but on sentience. Do you even read?
2. If you don't take factual evidence bas base for an answer what makes whatever you were thinking wrong? Oh yeah, your personal gut feeling on the matter... Nice..

It's the same thing as people using the atomic bomb. You now admit it was wrong, and it's not sciences fault as science doesn't actually bomb the people - we do. So, could it be that science isn't to blame for abortions, but the people who are doing them? Of course, they are using science the justify their actions, which in all reality, the science is in a constant state of flux and is going to change.

Science evolve, factual evidence given by it no. Facts are universal truths, by definition. If a fetus does not have a brain or brain activity on a given period of time, that truth won't change for that period.

What won't change is the loss of life - you can't take it back.

Exactly, so don't take it away from sentient people by locking them up for life. You're valuing the life of a human-to-be over a human-that-is. The human-to-be is no human at this point, it isn't a person, it isn't self-aware, it isn't sentient. The human-that-is is and is being punished out of delusion and biggotry and hatred.

Of course, you're disillusioned with your faith. I understand. I get it.

Heil Science! Kill babies!

LOL, troll.

 

[cots]

So you're taking your stance on morality, which is man made, thus inaccurate and could change to anything over time to justify thinking controlling other people is ok.

I never said controlling other people is okay. I don't think it's okay to control people or kill babies.

My point is that science is just as flawed as religion or basic moral beliefs. I mean, exactly what science are you using to justify your stance for or against abortions? What makes the science you're using superior to the "other sides" science? So you might dismiss science based on prejudices and then chose the science that fits your agenda. You're doing the same thing as the other side. Look, killing babies is wrong. Science is not the answer to everything. Faith is flawed.

If you're taking my money to use to kill babies with then I do have a say in it. You can call that trying to control other people, but who is doing the controlling? You're trying to control me via taking my money and then trying to control the women at the same time? Now, who is the common enemy? It's the motherfuckers taking the money and telling the women what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies and their using science to justify it all with.

So I chose a fixed stance and won't change. I have the balls to do this. I don't have floating standards. I made my choice. This is something required in life that you do, if you try to skirt your way out of everything and not chose you're just a fucking coward that kills babies.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Science evolve, factual evidence given by it no. Facts are universal truths, by definition. If a fetus does not have a brain or brain activity on a given period of time, that truth won't change for that period.

So what happens when another sort of energy or presence is detected in the brain? I mean, scientists admit they know little to nothing about it. So what happens down the road when the entire understanding of the brain changes and the bar changes when you are sentient or not? How do you bring back all of the babies you murdered? You can't, you made a mistake - just like the other millions of people killed "in the name of science". I guess it also depends on what science you're using. Of course, the science you're using is superior or better to the other sides science, right? Lol. Call me a troll and then throw some Liberal buzz words at me. I can't help it you're confused. I mean, it must be nice being able to have faith in something that can explain everything and you can never be wrong or never have to make a stance (as your stance is in a constant state of flux).

So take the cowards way out and support killing babies. I'm not going to try to control you - just call it how I see it.

 

[WeedZ]

I never said controlling other people is okay. I don't think it's okay to control people or kill babies.

My point is that science is just as flawed as religion or basic moral beliefs. I mean, exactly what science are you using to justify your stance for or against abortions? What makes the science you're using superior to the "other sides" science? So you might dismiss science based on prejudices and then chose the science that fits your agenda. You're doing the same thing as the other side. Look, killing babies is wrong. Science is not the answer to everything. Faith is flawed.

If you're taking my money to use to kill babies with then I do have a say in it. You can call that trying to control other people, but who is doing the controlling? You're trying to control me via taking my money and then trying to control the women at the same time? Now, who is the common enemy? It's the motherfuckers taking the money and telling the women what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies and their using science to justify it all with.

So I chose a fixed stance and won't change. I have the balls to do this. I don't have floating standards. I made my choice. This is something required in life that you do, if you try to skirt your way out of everything and not chose you're just a fucking coward that kills babies.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



So what happens when another sort of energy or presence is detected in the brain? I mean, scientists admit they know little to nothing about it. So what happens down the road when the entire understanding of the brain changes and the bar changes when you are sentient or not? How do you bring back all of the babies you murdered? You can't, you made a mistake - just like the other millions of people killed "in the name of science". I guess it also depends on what science you're using. Of course, the science you're using is superior or better to the other sides science, right? Lol. Call me a troll and then throw some Liberal buzz words at me. I can't help it you're confused. I mean, it must be nice being able to have faith in something that can explain everything and you can never be wrong or never have to make a stance (as your stance is in a constant state of flux).

So take the cowards way out and support killing babies. I'm not going to try to control you - just call it how I see it.

Science would be what is responsible for discovering that new energy. And as we always have, we would evolve with our new understanding and the world would change again. Thanks to science.

You keep saying you have an opinion on the subject because your tax dollars are being used. It doesnt work that way, but for the sake of argument, how much do you donate for research into birth defects? How many unwanted children have you fostered? How many single mothers and rape victims have you helped house and feed? How have you contributed to any better solutions?

 

[pustal]

So wshat hapens when another sort of energy or presence is detected in the brain? I mean, scientists admit they know little to nothing about it. So what happens down the road when the entire understanding of the brain changes and the bar changes when you are sentient or not? How do you bring back all of the babies you murdered? You can't, you made a mistake - just like the other millions of people killed "in the name of science". I guess it also depends on what science you're using. Of course, the science you're using is superior or better to the other sides science, right? Lol. Call me a troll and then throw some Liberal buzz words at me. I can't help it you're confused. I mean, it must be nice being able to have faith in something that can explain everything and you can never be wrong or never have to make a stance (as your stance is in a constant state of flux).

So take the cowards way out and support killing babies. I'm not going to try to control you - just call it how I see it.

We do know thoughts are produced through the communication of synapses. If there is no brain acrivity there are no thoughts. That much is known and is enough to settle the issue.

And it's not a matter of courage or cowardness. It's a matter of Justice. You can't judge people on the basis of what you don't know, but on what you know. Can you prove that there is not an invisible energy around you that kills people somewhere each time you take a breath? Should we arrest you for life because you took a breath and there is a endlessly remote possibility that you are killing people on the off chance? It makes no sense.

 

[JoeBloggs777]

I'm pro choice because it has LITERALLY nothing to do with us. We're guys, we don't have a uterus to plop babies out of, so why should it be our decision? Also you're not killing babies, it's literally the equivalent of removing a parasite until it's over 21 weeks old. I swear you all are like "life is precious oh how sweet a little baby" until it's born without a loving family that can't even afford to take care of the thing, in which case you guys couldn't give a single flying fuck about them. It's better to have a """"""living thing"""""" gone than give it an awful life. Also you said that "something inside you tells you that killing babies isn't right" yet forcing a woman to give birth to a child after she's been raped is fine to you? You literally make me sick, the world would be better if you were aborted too.

it is to do with you thou, everyone has a choice to wear a condom or not, simple as that.

abortions because of rape and medical reasons are valid unlike those who had a choice to use contraception or not.

parasite or medical waste?

 

[AkGBA]

@pustal I like you, man. Nice thinking. You're perfectly explaining the scientific method, reasoning.
Don't take any offense about this, I don't want to do any generalization, but you're the first Portuguese person I didn't have to argue about all-powerful faith. Refreshing.

 

[pustal]

@pustal I like you, man. Nice thinking. You're perfectly explaining the scientific method, reasoning.
Don't take any offense about this, I don't want to do any generalization, but you're the first Portuguese person I didn't have to argue about all-powerful faith. Refreshing.

Thank you. What kind of Portuguese people have you been talking to? Older generations are very religious but newer ones not so much.

 

[AkGBA]

Thank you. What kind of Portuguese people have you been talking to? Older generations are very religious but newer ones not so much.

Mainly students in my french town. Surely wasn't a representative sample.

 

[cots]

Science would be what is responsible for discovering that new energy. And as we always have, we would evolve with our new understanding and the world would change again. Thanks to science.

So, the current understanding would be altered or changed and the senseless killing found to be wrong - just in the case of most loss of life in the past. I'm basing this on what has happened before, which is a good indicator on what will most likely happen.

You keep saying you have an opinion on the subject because your tax dollars are being used. It doesnt work that way, but for the sake of argument, how much do you donate for research into birth defects? How many unwanted children have you fostered? How many single mothers and rape victims have you helped house and feed? How have you contributed to any better solutions?

So the Government takes my money (taxes) and then uses this money to pay for a cocaine addict who likes to get knocked up and abort her babies abortion (because she can't afford it on her own, she already spent her welfare checks and food stamps on more cocaine). If you're going to use my money to do this with then I am part of the equation and have a say in the matter. What can I do? I can vote against the practice and also be vocal about the situation. If you find this to be controlling over women you're looking at it from the wrong perspective - I'm trying to control what my money is used for. The people that are trying to control others are the ones that are taking my money and then telling women they should or shouldn't have an abortion. Remove them from the equation and the problem would not be such a problem. I would still disagree with abortions, killing babies is wrong and my mind isn't going to change, but then I wouldn't be a part of decision making process thus my votes wouldn't mean jack shit - because there would be nothing to vote for! I wouldn't have to fund abortions and women could do as they please.

I haven't spent any more money than what is taken out of my taxes to assist research (which is enough already), nor have taken any unwanted children into my home, haven't helped any rape victims, but I have been contributing to a better solution via voting against taking my money and I don't plan to because it's not my responsibility. Just because I don't help in the matters you listed, which in all reality you did list to gain sympathy and make an emotional statement to help your cause, doesn't make my opinion and the fact my money is being used to kill babies with any less valid. I don't have to help in the ways you listed and don't care if you find that offensive or being part of the problem. Stupid people will end right there, but I don't fall for that sort of emotional rational.

 

[SG854]

I never said controlling other people is okay. I don't think it's okay to control people or kill babies.

My point is that science is just as flawed as religion or basic moral beliefs. I mean, exactly what science are you using to justify your stance for or against abortions? What makes the science you're using superior to the "other sides" science? So you might dismiss science based on prejudices and then chose the science that fits your agenda. You're doing the same thing as the other side. Look, killing babies is wrong. Science is not the answer to everything. Faith is flawed.

If you're taking my money to use to kill babies with then I do have a say in it. You can call that trying to control other people, but who is doing the controlling? You're trying to control me via taking my money and then trying to control the women at the same time? Now, who is the common enemy? It's the motherfuckers taking the money and telling the women what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies and their using science to justify it all with.

So I chose a fixed stance and won't change. I have the balls to do this. I don't have floating standards. I made my choice. This is something required in life that you do, if you try to skirt your way out of everything and not chose you're just a fucking coward that kills babies.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



So what happens when another sort of energy or presence is detected in the brain? I mean, scientists admit they know little to nothing about it. So what happens down the road when the entire understanding of the brain changes and the bar changes when you are sentient or not? How do you bring back all of the babies you murdered? You can't, you made a mistake - just like the other millions of people killed "in the name of science". I guess it also depends on what science you're using. Of course, the science you're using is superior or better to the other sides science, right? Lol. Call me a troll and then throw some Liberal buzz words at me. I can't help it you're confused. I mean, it must be nice being able to have faith in something that can explain everything and you can never be wrong or never have to make a stance (as your stance is in a constant state of flux).

So take the cowards way out and support killing babies. I'm not going to try to control you - just call it how I see it.

Science doesn’t tell you when it’s okay to kill a fetus anymore then it tells you when it’s okay to kill an aging old man. It just explains things, like how a baby would develop and how it’s brain develops. When its okay to kill a fetus is a human moral decision. They can use science to make arguments for or against moral decisions, but when it’s ok and not evil to kill a fetus is not something science tells you.


Science is not the same as religion because you can test it. It has to be falsifiable. And repeatable. If one single thing shows it wrong then the whole hypothesis is tossed out. Religion tells you to believe in faith, where science you have to provide evidence. And people in Japan got to see how real Einstein's theory’s were in WW2. It’s don’t believe till you have evidence. I have yet to see evidence of a God. So science is not the same as Religion.

I have no idea what you mean by others science as a criticism. If it’s testable, repeatable, even against others hypothesis then it’s a well established theory. It is under constant battle against other ideas/science, and the one the holds the best is the one that reins on top while others are tossed away.

 

[cots]

Science doesn’t tell you when it’s okay to kill a fetus anymore then it tells you when it’s okay to kill an aging old man. It just explains things, like how a baby would develop and how it’s brain develops. When its okay to kill a fetus is a human moral decision. They can use science to make arguments for or against moral decisions, but when it’s ok and not evil to kill a fetus is not something science tells you.

Which is why using science to justify abortions is not correct. It's a moral decision you're making based on something that is likely to change. How many times have you heard "We did the best with what we knew at the time"? Well, that didn't ever solve the senseless death, did it?

Science is not the same as religion because you can test it. It has to be falsifiable. And repeatable. If one single thing shows it wrong then the whole hypothesis is tossed out. Religion tells you to believe in faith, where science you have to provide evidence. And people in Japan got to see how real Einstein's theory’s were in WW2. It’s don’t believe till you have evidence. I have yet to see evidence of a God. So science is not the same as Religion.

I have no idea what you mean by others science as a criticism. If it’s testable, repeatable, even against others hypothesis then it’s a well established theory. It is under constant battle against other ideas/science, and the one the holds the best is the one that reins on top while others are tossed away.

Tossed away? Correct. Today's understanding of what equals "is the baby alive" might be "tossed away". Science is also open to interpretation and as you can see conservatives have use their own science and democrats another to justify their stance on abortion? Who's is more correct? Who is the say one is better than the other? Who makes the judgment to "toss away" incorrect science? The entire concept and process is flawed by design. Sure, I don't see anything better option at the moment for some of the stuff science can answer (I said some, not all), but to insist it's the only way and then admit that "new stuff comes along and we toss out the old" is contradictory.

People decide, based on more factors than pure science, on "which one the holds the best is the one that reins on top while others are tossed away." You can see clearly how this process is not valid nor ever will be.

If you truly believe in science then you should understand that it's not perfect and what you consider to be "correct" now is probably going to change. It comes down to if you value human life or not. As a person of science you'd have to realize that the definition of when human life actually is human life changes (as it's different now than what is used to be) and also that different sides use different scientific systems to decide - and what makes one side better over then others? Does your science say it's the only right way, but what if their science says the same thing? Then it comes down to what we think vs what they think, a human involved, faulty system of conclusion.

If you truly value human life than you would protect it, at any stage. That includes before birth, during birth, after birth, near death and after death. You can't pick and chose which ones you support and then say you support life - when you're not supporting the entire process (from start to finish). Basically, if you don't value human life you support abortions.

... and while all of this is going on unborn children are being killed.

Personally, I'm going to use common sense and my own judgment as guidelines to the way I live my life. This, at times, might involve science and/or religion, but I'm not going to say any of these imperfect systems are better than another and I'm not going to limit myself to only one of them or one side of the issue, but that also doesn't limit me from having to decide, one way or the other, one an issue and sticking with my decision.

You you chose to solely live you life based on science, a flawed human creation and you won't budge then you would clearly see that we share a common way of thinking. You choice is flawed, my choice is flawed - and I'm OKAY with that. Just please, stop killing babies.

 

[SG854]

Which is why using science to justify abortions is not correct. It's a moral decision you're making based on something that is likely to change. How many times have you heard "We did the best with what we knew at the time"? Well, that didn't ever solve the senseless death, did it?



Tossed away? Correct. Today's understanding of what equals "is the baby alive" might be "tossed away". Science is also open to interpretation and as you can see conservatives have use their own science and democrats another to justify their stance on abortion? Who's is more correct? Who is the say one is better than the other? Who makes the judgment to "toss away" incorrect science? The entire concept and process is flawed by design. Sure, I don't see anything better option at the moment for some of the stuff science can answer (I said some, not all), but to insist it's the only way and then admit that "new stuff comes along and we toss out the old" is contradictory.

People decide, based on more factors than pure science, on "which one the holds the best is the one that reins on top while others are tossed away." You can see clearly how this process is not valid nor ever will be.

If you truly believe in science then you should understand that it's not perfect and what you consider to be "correct" now is probably going to change. It comes down to if you value human life or not. As a person of science you'd have to realize that the definition of when human life actually is human life changes (as it's different now than what is used to be) and also that different sides use different scientific systems to decide - and what makes one side better over then others? Does your science say it's the only right way, but what if their science says the same thing? Then it comes down to what we think vs what they think, a human involved, faulty system of conclusion.

... and while all of this is going on unborn children are being killed.

The difference is hypothesis and theories. Hypothesis are ideas. And we test the hypothesis. If a hypothesis is wrong then it is tossed away.

If a hypothesis is well tested it becomes a theory. The word theory in the scientific field is used not the same way everyday people use it. Theory of relativity, theory of gravity, theory of evolution. They all have been tested and well supported.

Einstein’s theories improved on Newton’s theories that failed to predict certain things, but that doesn’t mean Newton’s theories are useless. Because they worked well for many years and helped kick start the industrial revolution. They have been tested and repeatable theories and that part isn’t going to change when new science comes out. It’s just that Einstein improved on certain things Newton’s theories had limitations on. But Newton’s theories is still used today even with the existence of Einstein’s theories.


The same can be applied for any other scientific field, psychology, biology, medical science which we all rely on nowadays.

 

[cots]

It’s just that Einstein improved on certain things Newton’s theories had limitations on.

What happens when the definition of when life starts "is improved upon"?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The difference is hypothesis and theories. Hypothesis are ideas. And we test the hypothesis. If a hypothesis is wrong then it is tossed away.

Also, you realize, that the questions that are being asked are not being asked in any logical sort of order. Issues are being addressed on a personal bias order. People research into what they want to research into. It's not like there is some logical process involved when it comes to the discovery of new stuff - I mean, you start at X and then go to the next step, but where you start and each step is influenced by emotion, or feeling. It's not like we're starting at the atom and moving out in every possible direction of research. It's targeted, therefor, it's biased and flawed.

 

[JaapDaniels]

Which is why using science to justify abortions is not correct. It's a moral decision you're making based on something that is likely to change. How many times have you heard "We did the best with what we knew at the time"? Well, that didn't ever solve the senseless death, did it?



Tossed away? Correct. Today's understanding of what equals "is the baby alive" might be "tossed away". Science is also open to interpretation and as you can see conservatives have use their own science and democrats another to justify their stance on abortion? Who's is more correct? Who is the say one is better than the other? Who makes the judgment to "toss away" incorrect science? The entire concept and process is flawed by design. Sure, I don't see anything better option at the moment for some of the stuff science can answer (I said some, not all), but to insist it's the only way and then admit that "new stuff comes along and we toss out the old" is contradictory.

People decide, based on more factors than pure science, on "which one the holds the best is the one that reins on top while others are tossed away." You can see clearly how this process is not valid nor ever will be.

If you truly believe in science then you should understand that it's not perfect and what you consider to be "correct" now is probably going to change. It comes down to if you value human life or not. As a person of science you'd have to realize that the definition of when human life actually is human life changes (as it's different now than what is used to be) and also that different sides use different scientific systems to decide - and what makes one side better over then others? Does your science say it's the only right way, but what if their science says the same thing? Then it comes down to what we think vs what they think, a human involved, faulty system of conclusion.

... and while all of this is going on unborn children are being killed.

an unborn child isn't being killed as it has no live on it's own to begin with.
sience isn't perfect as is the conservative consept.
conservatives we're the main reason of abortion, a non visible life used to be not calculated as being life.
the consept was even worse then we do now, castration for those who got pregnant but no father...
adoption (or something alike) for a a child with a mother with no means to keep the father in the picture.
killing even alive children up to 4 years old for they we're so called sperm of the devil.

the beginning of life starts either by thinking on it's own or by the function to breath and pump blood through itself.
both these consepts don't apply to a Proteïn bomb in a mother untill week 7.
funtction to pump blood on it's own isn't there as it has no heart, it's still a vessel if there's no breathing so it needs lungs, the brain isn't there either.
it's just a growing mass of proteïn.

so why for god's sake would any thinking animal claim the right to say they should know better what to do with a proteïn bomb in a womb than the carrier.

what makes you a better person to think good and wrong so clearly?

• is it your life we're talking about? no!
• is it the child's life we're talking about? no!
• is it the mother's life we're talking about? yes!

so go back to that cave of justiuce you belive in!
it's not science, it's not god's will, it's not conserrvative to any standard i've ever read or seen.

the reason abortion should be an option till we talk about a living beïng, is that the living should go before.
the living is only the mom, not the proteïn bomb you call unborn child.