Certainly they can live. Then they can be born when the time is right. If not, none of us would be here. Unless of course they are deprived of life.
Baby butchers admitting prenatal infantacide kills a baby
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
Certainly they can live. Then they can be born when the time is right. If not, none of us would be here. Unless of course they are deprived of life.
cubansammich
Not a Member
Do you have any idea how utterly ridiculous and desperately grasping that sounds? There is no scientific evidence that something does NOT exist, therefore you should believe it does? Seriously? There is no scientific evidence that unicorns do NOT exist, therefore you should believe in them.
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
That is NOT what I meant. What I meant was just because there is no scientific evidence that God exists does not mean that He does not. Science has yet to prove or disprove everything that is, or is not, possible, or that may, or may not, exist.
There for, just because there is no scientific evidence proving the existence of God is no reason to not believe.
There are many in science that believe in the idea of "multi-verses", as in multiple universes. There are many that believe that anything that can be imagined can exist in one, or more, of those universes.
No scientific proof of something is no reason to either not believe or to believe in something. Science has also, many times, been wrong in the past, very well may be wrong now, and likely will be wrong in the future. Science is not the end all.
Most of this seems fairly simple to me. If we are to declare someone dead when the heart and or brain waves/function cease to exist, that should be the guide to follow. If it is prior to that, there can't be a death where no life has actually happened or existed..
The rest of it should be up to the mother and or father. They have to be the ultimate "deciders" if life hasn't actually happened.
The rest of it should be up to the mother and or father. They have to be the ultimate "deciders" if life hasn't actually happened.
The heart starts beating about 18-22 days. Brain waves can be detected as early as 6 weeks
Easy solution just abort the baby and give the father back his half what he donated.... issue settled.
If there is no brain function until 6 weeks, then you don't have life at that point. People are clinically dead if no brain waves exist. So....for me personally, that would be my benchmark.
Pretty much the same criteria a doctor would use on the living. No brain activity according to them and you are dead.
Last edited:
shooter has already said he agrees with abortion in the cases of rape incest and the health of the mother
To each his own. You won't get abortion outlawed on brain waves. Single cell animals, without brain waves are considered to be alive.
As I have said, it is a state issue and should be left up to a VOTE, not the courts. I cannot nor want to FORCE my personal beliefs, with the full force of the federal government, on others. If I did I would be a Demoncrat.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Careful there bro ...
Our resident brony Ninja warrior from Pearland is just trying to use "PC mumbo-jumbo" to confuse you ... with some of that fecal encephalopathy double-speak he's so familiar with ...
Person ?
We don't need no steekin' persons in this discussion ...
Last edited:
Like I said in a earlier post, the Bible is very clear on when a person's life begins. There's nothing in science or biology to dispute it, either.
That is why I said "me personally". I just look at it in the most clinical sense. If you have guidelines for death, then use the same the other way.
But I do agree, it should be a state issue but probably won't be.
I am also mindful that not everyone would agree with my position but I think it is the best one.
I can get to the same place whether looking through the prism of religion or not.
But I do agree, it should be a state issue but probably won't be.
I am also mindful that not everyone would agree with my position but I think it is the best one.
I can get to the same place whether looking through the prism of religion or not.
Last edited:
Correct. Science is a process. Theories are developed, and then through observation and experiment those the theory is either proved or disproved, or is changed to to align with the facts. Religion, on the other hand, wants to skip all that messy observation and experiment stuff and go right to the theory being a stone-cold irrefutable fact.
By the same reasoning, there is also no reason to believe.
Yes, however none of those who believe in that will say they believe in it with an absolute moral certainty as a fact, since it's a theory open to be refuted. Religion, on the other hand, does not permit itself to be refuted in any way.
Science is rarely wrong, it's only the theories which are wrong, and it's the theories which are constantly being tested for validity.
The basis of science is to make claims that are testable. That does not mean provable. It means falsifiable. When an experiment in science matches the theory, it doesn't "prove" something, it indicates that the theory appears to be correct within the limits of the experiment. If it does not match the theory, then the hypothesis behind the theory is faulty and must be revised or discarded. Science progresses when previous theories are shown to be incorrect or incomplete, and are revised or replaced. And experiments are also required to be reproducible by anyone who wishes to test the theory and can recreate the experiment.
Religion does not leave any room for falsification. You can't prove a religious belief false, that's how the belief system is structured. It may be possible for an actual divine act to occur and convince people that a belief is true, but it's unlikely to be replicable at will by skeptics who did not witness the event, and some witnesses may choose to believe another explanation than divine intervention. Any observation anyone makes can simply be explained by "God made it that way." There is no way to refute it with evidence, as it is a belief-based system that depends on supreme being instead of natural processes. Thus, not science.
The extreme distrust of intellectualism throughout the US in particular is a major block in the advancement of society on a wide variety of fronts, and most often that distrust is manufactured as a form of religious views attacking scientific foundations and research. Religion abhors intellectual learning. That's why the Dark Ages happened, the period between the 5th and 10th centuries of intellectual darkness and economic regression when science and the scientific method was declared blasphemy and all learning and education was to be strictly of a religious nature. Anything that contradicted the theology resulted in harsh penalties to the author.
The attitudes of the Dark Ages in many ways continue today. Religion is used to fervently oppose science by those uneducated masses who understand neither their own religion or science. Science is the eternal curious ape asking "why that, then?" As soon as you put in "irreducible complexity" that religion is so fond of, you've closed off science. Religion merely says at some point "there's no point looking for why here," and they just chalk it up to God. Religion would like nothing better than to end science once and for all. Religion has been cut back further and further over the aeons, from being the reason why lions eat people, lightning strikes and illness happens. Now we know that lions are independent creatures that eat meat, lightning strikes are caused by electrical buildup in the clouds and that illnesses are caused by little organisms. Every time science answers a question "why that, then?", God gets a little slimmer, and people don't like that. They don't like it so much that they either dismiss science altogether, or they invent junk science like Christian Science, which is an oxymoron on a Biblical scale.
So is the world 5000 years old or not? I'm confused.
It is basically when born and that is it. Not a word about anything before that if we are just looking at the religious part. Of course we see how that is interpreted through these posts.