Evidence for God from Science

Tell me Murray, where did that picture come from?

RickD wrote:Pierson5 wrote:

You honestly believe they WANT to kill human beings? I disagree sir.

Planned Parenthood is a business, that charges money to women, so their "doctors" can perform a service of killing human beings. Unless the definition of "want" has changed, then yes, they WANT to kill human beings for a profit. Nobody is holding a gun to planned parenthoods head, and making them perform abortions.

But they do provide many, many other life improving and SAVING services. Wouldn't you agree that cancer screening and testing for STD's save lives? Would you also agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies through education prevents potential abortions and in turn saves the lives of the mothers (if abortion was outlawed)? I believe education is the answer.....

Since you're asking me, I never said I wanted to close down planned parenthood. I could never, in good conscience, give them money willingly. Having my tax dollars pay for abortion, is not my choice. ...

For profit? You do realize that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization right? And again, 3 percent of their services are abortion services, hardly the "money makers". You are right, if abortion was illegal, then licensed medical professionals would not be able to perform these procedures. Why is that a good thing? In areas which abortion is illegal, the abortion rates are still the same. So not only are you not reducing abortion rates, but you then have unlicensed, non-medical professionals performing them. You lose the fetus AND the mother has a higher rate of mortality from complications performed by an amateur.

Making the procedure illegal only makes things worse. I don't know what you mean by the nation will not last. I have a difficult time seeing that. As I said before, if you have a better approach than I proposed to reducing abortion rates, I definitely want to hear it.

For profit? You do realize that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization right?

What I meant, was that doctors get paid to kill babies.

. You are right, if abortion was illegal, then licensed medical professionals would not be able to perform these procedures. Why is that a good thing?

Because doctors are supposed to save lives, not end lives.
Pierson5, we are talking about the lives of helpless human beings, made in the image of God, being killed for convenience. Since you like statistics, do a little research, and see for yourself how many abortions are performed, just because the baby is an inconvenience, or "mistake".
It's actually pretty simple. It's a human life that deserves protection under the law, just like any born person.

Making the procedure illegal only makes things worse. I don't know what you mean by the nation will not last. I have a difficult time seeing that. As I said before, if you have a better approach than I proposed to reducing abortion rates, I definitely want to hear it.

If making abortion illegal, because it's murder, and it opens the eyes of people, so they see that it's actually a human being that is being killed, not a lump of cells, then that's a great thing.

RickD wrote:

For profit? You do realize that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization right?

What I meant, was that doctors get paid to kill babies.

. You are right, if abortion was illegal, then licensed medical professionals would not be able to perform these procedures. Why is that a good thing?

Because doctors are supposed to save lives, not end lives.
Pierson5, we are talking about the lives of helpless human beings, made in the image of God, being killed for convenience. Since you like statistics, do a little research, and see for yourself how many abortions are performed, just because the baby is an inconvenience, or "mistake".
It's actually pretty simple. It's a human life that deserves protection under the law, just like any born person.

Making the procedure illegal only makes things worse. I don't know what you mean by the nation will not last. I have a difficult time seeing that. As I said before, if you have a better approach than I proposed to reducing abortion rates, I definitely want to hear it.

If making abortion illegal, because it's murder, and it opens the eyes of people, so they see that it's actually a human being that is being killed, not a lump of cells, then that's a great thing.

I've seen the stats. Like I said before, pro-choice or not, I don't think many people consider it a good thing. The point is, if you take a look at the stats I posted earlier, outlawing doesn't help. It doesn't open the eyes of people seeking abortion. The rates and numbers remain the same.

You mention the fetuses are created in the image of god. Are the mothers also created in this way? As I said before, outlawing doesn't reduce the rate of abortion, but instead endangers the lives of the mothers as well.

http://afterabortion.org/1999/illegal-a ... -the-cure/
And
http://www.abort73.com/end_abortion/wha ... abortions/
And
http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/2008/ ... tion-rate/

RickD wrote:http://afterabortion.org/1999/illegal-a ... -the-cure/
And
http://www.abort73.com/end_abortion/wha ... abortions/
And
http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/2008/ ... tion-rate/

One of the commenters summed it up pretty nicely.

1. You can find a country where it is illegal with a lower rate than a country where it is legal. But that is cherry-picking. If you aggregate a larger sample of illegal and legal countries, there is a very strong correlation: abortion rates are lower in countries where it is legal and where contraception and contraception education is readily available. However, there is an irreparable flaw in the data as described below.

2. Blackadder’s attempt to cherry-pick also relies on rates of abortion that are just as suspect as the ones he criticizes, and for the same reason. Abortion rates in illegal countries cannot be accurately gathered. Since abortions there are illegal, physicians providing them do not keep nor report their statistics. So a real comparison is not actually possible in any scientific way. Blackadder had a good criticism against the Guttmacher data, but then he falls into the same pit by trying to make the opposite statement using even weaker data.

3. Since you cannot get truly reliable abortion data from countries where it is illegal, we cannot compare with those countries. What you can do is compare rates of teen pregnancy, which are slightly more reliable, and within countries with legal abortions, you can compare with those. The trend? In states or countries that favor abstinence and limit contraception, teen pregnancies are much higher than states or countries where contraception and public education is readily available.

Conclusion? Among countries and states that have legal abortion (the only group you can accurately sample) far more abortions are caused by lack of pubilc education and lack of readily available birth control. And what is most important, the teen pregnancy rate is lower in countries and states with readily available birth control and birth control education.

Solutions? make birth control and birth control education widely available. We are driving more abortions every day by refraining from doing so, out of a misunderstanding of what is actually happening.

If you don’t like abortion, promote birth control and birth control education now.

Studies comparing abstinance education vs birth control education and readily available birth control have already demonstrated that abstinance education fails. Indeed, teen pregnancy rates are twice as high among those who “took the vow” than those who were given birth control education and who had birth control readily available.

Sometimes we must give up a favored opinion when facts prove otherwise.

But the good news is, you can cut the rate of abortions in half, and honor life, if you are willing to let the truth guide your actions, and put dogma aside.

You can site as many anti-abortion websites and blogs as you want. The data and the solution have already been posted. I have yet to hear a better solution than this. I'm not even getting into things like complications of pregnancy (where the mother and fetus are not going to make it).

Pierson, would you respond the same to so-called "after birth abortions"?

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/ph ... 1u61l.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

Kurieuo wrote:Pierson, would you respond the same to so-called "after birth abortions"?

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/ph ... 1u61l.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I'm sure you've heard this analogy:

"The development of an entity from conception through birth to childhood is continuous. There is no natural place to draw a line. Therefore, we should say that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception."

"The development from an acorn into an oak tree is continuous. It does not follow that an acorn is an oak tree."

I will say the development of the fetus where we can definitely say that a human being exists is highly problematic. That is a whole argument in of itself. Person hood of the fetus occurs for different people at different stages of fetal development. All are agreed, however, that as the fetus approaches viability, it becomes less and less morally permissible for it to be aborted. Consequently, then, they are prepared to accept early abortions, they are strongly disinclined to accept abortions which occur close to the point at which the fetus becomes viable, and they are not prepared to accept abortions which occur from the moment that the fetus becomes viable.

But I am unaware of any situation in which a newborn baby is forced upon anyone against their will (i.e. rape induced pregnancy). Or any situation where a newborn baby threatens the life of itself and it's mother unless it's terminated (Complications with pregnancy). Granted, these are rare circumstances, but I think you can agree just because they are rare, we shouldn't say they never happen, or ignore this group. I guess you could then say, develop a law that makes abortion OK under these circumstances, but not others. Then we are back where we started. Outlawing doesn't work. Again, I have yet to see any strong argument against the solution I posted above to reduce abortion rates and truly save lives.

Pierson5 wrote: I'm sure you've heard this analogy:

"The development of an entity from conception through birth to childhood is continuous. There is no natural place to draw a line. Therefore, we should say that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception."

"The development from an acorn into an oak tree is continuous. It does not follow that an acorn is an oak tree."

Well the growth is only continuous once it sprouts, kind of sketchy. I think it is better to compare it to a sapling.

Pierson5 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Pierson, would you respond the same to so-called "after birth abortions"?

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/ph ... 1u61l.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I'm sure you've heard this analogy:

"The development of an entity from conception through birth to childhood is continuous. There is no natural place to draw a line. Therefore, we should say that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception."

"The development from an acorn into an oak tree is continuous. It does not follow that an acorn is an oak tree."

I will say the development of the fetus where we can definitely say that a human being exists is highly problematic. That is a whole argument in of itself. Person hood of the fetus occurs for different people at different stages of fetal development. All are agreed, however, that as the fetus approaches viability, it becomes less and less morally permissible for it to be aborted. Consequently, then, they are prepared to accept early abortions, they are strongly disinclined to accept abortions which occur close to the point at which the fetus becomes viable, and they are not prepared to accept abortions which occur from the moment that the fetus becomes viable.

All are certainly not agreed as a fetus approaches viability that it becomes less and less permissable for abortion... Netherlands certainly don't, and neither does China, neither do the philosophers who advocated and pointed out the logical conclusion of pre-birth abortion arguments logically leading to the after-birth killing of an unwanted baby. Also, neither do I or many others pro-rights of babies accept it becomes less and less permissable to kill or "abort" a human being once they are viable and can survive on their own.

Biologically, I (and many of my position) do not make a metaphysical distinction between "human being" and "human person". To me, they're both the same thing. One either is or is not a human being and therefore a human person entitled to full human rights.

Only it seems, governments and the societies at a given time, based on some exclusivist "club" mentality, feel there is some conferment of right in being in the "club" to be able exclude other human persons based on some mystical metaphysical property (as did Nazi Germany with Jews, or even England/US/Australia with black slaves and indigenous persons).

Pierson wrote:But I am unaware of any situation in which a newborn baby is forced upon anyone against their will (i.e. rape induced pregnancy). Or any situation where a newborn baby threatens the life of itself and it's mother unless it's terminated (Complications with pregnancy). Granted, these are rare circumstances, but I think you can agree just because they are rare, we shouldn't say they never happen, or ignore this group. I guess you could then say, develop a law that makes abortion OK under these circumstances, but not others. Then we are back where we started. Outlawing doesn't work. Again, I have yet to see any strong argument against the solution I posted above to reduce abortion rates and truly save lives.

If this mystical property of "personhood" is based on whether a woman is "raped" or at risk of "death", then overlooking the question how these happening to another person can influence the status of another person... does this mean you believe the distinguishing factor between pre-birth abortions vs after-birth is rape or risk of death?

So then, if a mother does not have either, then laws should be changed to make abortion wrong based simply on the mother's whim or desire? If you still believe that a mother should be able to abort their unborn regardless whether or not there are exceptional circumstances, then where is the difference with aborting the baby after birth?

The difference between an after-birth abortion and a situation where the mother and child will almost certainly die is rather massive, Kurieuo. It's shocking to me how many pro-life people I know are completely ok with the concept of denying an abortion to a mother who is at extreme risk of death if she goes through with giving birth. I know it's not "common", but that isn't the point. current legislation being pushed to criminalize abortion leaves this issue out. They would literally say that a ten-year-old girl who is raped and literally can not survive giving birth should simply be required "morally" to die on the slim chance that the baby live. If you think that abortion violates the "do no harm" portion of a doctor's oath, I will say that mandatory death sentences for some pregnant women is ten times worse.

Ivellious, the question comes down to what is the status of the unborn?

If unborn humans are valuable for being human, then what you pose is a moral dilemma and nothing more. It has no influence over what the status of the unborn is, whether or not the unborn are human and so entitled to protection in virtue of their humanness.

Your situation is no different to the analogy of the father controlling the train tracks. His son walks out onto the tracks, and a train is approaching. He can switch the train tracks so the train veers off course, but doing so will be at the detriment of all on the train due to incompleted tracks. Or, the father can allow his son to get hit and save those on the train. How does this moral dilemma remove the human value of either the son or those on the train? It doesn't. It is simply a moral dilemma, and one people of all sorts (not just "pro-life" or what-have-you) would have differing opinions on.

It's a moral problem, yes. But what is the justification for ending two lives when there is an absolute method for saving one life? In a situation where there is a defect in the child or the mother that causes a pregnancy to become lethal for the mother, that child is a living bomb, capable of taking both itself and the mother with it.

The analogy is different. Your situation implies one life is greater than many, or vice-versa. It implies a choice is being made between who to save. In most pregnancies involving lethal risks to the mother, the child is at equal risk to die. I'm saying it is absolutely horrid to tell a mother that we have the medical technology to save her life, but the child is worth enough to murder both of them under some non-existent moral code.

Ivellious wrote:It's a moral problem, yes. But what is the justification for ending two lives when there is an absolute method for saving one life? In a situation where there is a defect in the child or the mother that causes a pregnancy to become lethal for the mother, that child is a living bomb, capable of taking both itself and the mother with it.

The analogy is different. Your situation implies one life is greater than many, or vice-versa. It implies a choice is being made between who to save. In most pregnancies involving lethal risks to the mother, the child is at equal risk to die. I'm saying it is absolutely horrid to tell a mother that we have the medical technology to save her life, but the child is worth enough to murder both of them under some non-existent moral code.

I don't know what you're arguing. Of course it's more logical to save one life over another.

You seem to be debating, committing some kind of genetic fallacy with me, that is, associating me with some group of beliefs.

Are you saying when it comes to choosing one human life over another there is no moral dilemma?

What I'm saying is that in a situation where abortion of an unborn child is the only method to save the mother's life, it is immoral to force a mother to die or to force a doctor to stand idly by while a mother dies. Most of the time, these pregnancies involve the death of the child as well. It is both illogical and immoral in my mind to claim that choosing two deaths over one is the proper and good thing to do. It is immoral to have the capability to save one life but not use it on supposed "moral grounds."

Obviously there is a moral dilemma when it comes to choosing one life over another, but I'm not saying that. I'm saying that pro-life legislation eliminates any possibility to save a mother in a situation where she would die from attempting to give birth. That is murder of the mother, and in most cases, the child is a casualty as well. I don't see the moral high ground that this logic uses to stand on.