Evidence for God from Science

Whatever happened to those buildings where women who got raped or otherwise would've had an abortion would go to and be taken care of? I think they used to exist, pretty sure.

You mean "Crisis Pregnancy Centres"? They're generally frowned upon by society, because they want to help care for the woman and their child rather than have the woman kill their baby.

ultimate777 wrote:

Philip wrote:

Ultimate777: You've been on Earth too long. We will all be happier if come sun up you are in heaven. Even you.

Ultimate, please watch the deliberately insulting comments - the one above is uncalled for!

Rick said something which I don't understand, maybe to confuse me. I meant by vampired he hijacked my thread and used it for his own purposes. He has done stuff like that on almost everything I have posted. I consider that either insulting or worse than insulting. I've never started it up with him and I doubt I ever will. Lets all check if we can to see how many threads he has started.

From the board guidelines:

Perhaps the most important aspect of the new moderating policy:

There will be absolutely NO further continued PUBLIC arguing (past a warning, in a thread) over ANY aspect of what a poster has been warned about! Again, while a warned poster cannot continue a PUBLIC discussion over their warning, they CAN engage moderators privately, to argue or lobby their contentions and views concerning their warning. It is important to emphasize this new addition to policy is NOT designed to censor or temper the civil discussion of ideas and beliefs, no matter how extreme they might be - as long as they do not violate other aspects of our moderating policy.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 35#p212135

Kurieuo wrote:You mean "Crisis Pregnancy Centres"? They're generally frowned upon by society, because they want to help care for the woman and their child rather than have the woman kill their baby.

Wow, K, you packed a lot of lies in there...

1) They're not generally frowned upon. They're far more numerous than abortion providers, and they frequently get government funding.

2) Some of them might want to help women care for their babies, but frequently their only goal is to convince a woman not to have an abortion. They've been known to use lies, bullying, and manipulation to that end.

3) Criticism of CPCs is generally aimed at their frequently deceptive nature. They present themselves as healthcare providers, which they mostly are not, and they've been caught telling lies and calling it medical advice. For example, their claims that IUDs are likely to kill women, that the birth control pill causes cancer, and that condoms are naturally porous and won't prevent pregnancy or the transmitting of STDs are both common and blatantly false. I short, they pose as medical professionals to push an abstinence-only, anti-choice agenda from a position of authority.

4) Despite the way it's often mischaracterized by certain #$$@&£#$, the pro-choice position is not in opposition to people carrying pregnancies to term, nor is it bloodthirsty. Pro-choice advocates simply feel that the mother has the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and that she's in a far better position to make that decision than the government or some random Christian busybody.

5) And finally, it's worth pointing out that, at least in the US, the anti-choice crowd also tends to support politicians who are opposed to pregnancy preventers like comprehensive sex education and free birth control, as well as baby-centric measures like subsidised childcare and free healthcare.

In short, the pro-lifers have an unfortunate tendency to lose interest the second it's too late to abort. If they want the moral high ground than they should stop lying and start caring as much about actual babies as they claim to care about potential ones.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You mean "Crisis Pregnancy Centres"? They're generally frowned upon by society, because they want to help care for the woman and their child rather than have the woman kill their baby.

Wow, K, you packed a lot of lies in there...

1) They're not generally frowned upon. They're far more numerous than abortion providers, and they frequently get government funding.

2) Some of them might want to help women care for their babies, but frequently their only goal is to convince a woman not to have an abortion. They've been known to use lies, bullying, and manipulation to that end.

3) Criticism of CPCs is generally aimed at their frequently deceptive nature. They present themselves as healthcare providers, which they mostly are not, and they've been caught telling lies and calling it medical advice. For example, their claims that IUDs are likely to kill women, that the birth control pill causes cancer, and that condoms are naturally porous and won't prevent pregnancy or the transmitting of STDs are both common and blatantly false. I short, they pose as medical professionals to push an abstinence-only, anti-choice agenda from a position of authority.

4) Despite the way it's often mischaracterized by certain #$$@&£#$, the pro-choice position is not in opposition to people carrying pregnancies to term, nor is it bloodthirsty. Pro-choice advocates simply feel that the mother has the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and that she's in a far better position to make that decision than the government or some random Christian busybody.

5) And finally, it's worth pointing out that, at least in the US, the anti-choice crowd also tends to support politicians who are opposed to pregnancy preventers like comprehensive sex education and free birth control, as well as baby-centric measures like subsidised childcare and free healthcare.

In short, the pro-lifers have an unfortunate tendency to lose interest the second it's too late to abort. If they want the moral high ground than they should stop lying and start caring as much about actual babies as they claim to care about potential ones.

Good job with the sweeping generalizations, Ed. Good job.

edwardmurphy wrote: If they want the moral high ground than they should stop lying and start caring as much about actual babies as they claim to care about potential ones.

Specifics on this particular point, please.

Also you do realize everything K said was sarcasm right?

If it was sarcasm then he'd have meant the opposite of what he said, which I don't think he did.

As far as specifics, i included examples of the lies in my post. For examples of indifference to actual babies look no further than the things that get cut in Paul Ryan's budget proposals.

Everything I said is truth, no sarcasm perhaps a bit a cynicism on the issue. No doubt calling it like it is will produce ire from some.

In Australia, it would be frowned upon to allow people from such organisations to approach women who might be considering an abortion. Many are frowned upon, because they wish to help women and their babies, and such might influence (or as libtards would say "guilt", "manipulate", "bully", "deceive") a woman's decision into not terminating her baby.

Look at Ed's contradictory statements, he first adamantly declares such are not frowned upon (#1), and then in his next point says, "Some of them might want to help women care for their babies, but frequently their only goal is to convince a woman not to have an abortion. They've been known to use lies, bullying, and manipulation to that end." And then calling them deceptive etc, etc. Yes Ed, they're not frowned upon at all by many like yourself within society.

Sidewalk counselors, are prohibited in certain states in Australia. They cannot approach women to offer alternative choices, and those more pro-life on the issue aren't allowed to hold signs, give brochures or talk to women within 100 metres of an abortion clinic. You can be jailed, people have been jailed. Ed would love it.

As for killing a baby, such is the reason abortion is wrong. It always takes a human life, sometimes two. Why are pregnant women allowed to say "my baby is due...", "my baby this", "my baby that", yet when some tells a woman who's "aborting" that they're killing their baby -- "oh no, you can't call 'it' that... it's not a baby!"

Here's some satire from comedian Louis CK to lighten you up Ed, perhaps while you continue eating your straw: https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video. ... 4702827%2F

I didn't read this thread at first because it didn't sound that interesting to me, but you never know where the discussion will go...

Yes, an embryo or foetus is a person. It's a unique being which has been created by both the mother and father, and there's no line it crosses to become a baby when it wasn't before - in the early weeks and months it's simply a baby which is not very developed. (I say 'it' for simplicity rather than 'he or she'.) Babies have a lot of development to do before they're born and then a lot more before they become adults.

That's your belief. It's not the only belief.

edwardmurphy wrote:That's your belief. It's not the only belief.

You do know Roe vs Wade will be overturned in the future,don't ya? The majority of the American people have always been against abortion and this is why the only way liberals could force it on America against its will is by judges that legislate from the bench.Trump will get to replace up to five Supreme Court judges before he is through and he has already defunded Planned Parenthood.He is keeping to his campaign promises.Obama has set the Democrat Party back twenty years and Democrats have lost the last four elections,have lost the House,Senate,Governorships and thousands of legislatures and they are about to lose even more power as we go forward and it is not easy to get in power again,just ask the Tea Party how hard it is to gain power and you get stabbed in the back too.It is not easy and the Democrats now only offer Trump hate,lies,violence and slander to the American people.It is not looking good for Democrats for a long time.

This Trump revolution is nowhere near over either,we are energized when we see both parties blocking Trump's agenda and it only makes us want the swamp drained even more. We will not turn against Trump just because both parties are blocking his agenda.They are the problem,not Trump.Because these politicians we have no longer care about the American people,they abandoned the Constitution and made these secret deals with globalists and they are pushing their agenda onto the American people.They only care about their power and pushing a globalist agenda and this is treason.

Roe v Wade could be overturned, yes, but that wouldn't change my position. My beliefs don't change based on who has the political edge at the moment. If SCOTUS overturns Roe then they're wrong. That's their prerogative.

Also, you don't believe in polling, so you have no grounds to even have an opinion about what the majority of Americans believe about anything. I , however,believe in the efficacy of polls, so I do get to take a position. As usual, the data shows that you're wrong.

edwardmurphy wrote:Roe v Wade could be overturned, yes, but that wouldn't change my position. My beliefs don't change based on who has the political edge at the moment. If SCOTUS overturns Roe then they're wrong. That's their prerogative.

Also, you don't believe in polling, so you have no grounds to even have an opinion about what the majority of Americans believe about anything. I , however,believe in the efficacy of polls, so I do get to take a position. As usual, the data shows that you're wrong.

Yes,the same polls that showed that Trump cannot win,his favorability is too low,Hillary will win easily. I no longer trust any poll.I think they are outdated and are no longer accurate.But the fact is that the only way liberals could force abortion on America against its will is by judges legislating from the bench. If you were right about your polling Democrats would have done it by running on it and passing laws in Congress which they did not do. But also nobody is trying to force anybody to obey the law,etc we just do not want our tax dollars going to fund abortions,so they can raise their own money and pay for it. So it is not government interfering in our decisions,etc. We just don't want our tax dollars paying for the murder of innocent babies.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I don't understand how the Supreme Court works.

Indeed.

edwardmurphy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I don't understand how the Supreme Court works.

Indeed.

The Supreme Court is suppose to enforce the laws on the books written by Congress,which they did not do when it comes to abortion,same-sex marriages,etc.If you want abortion in America you have to run for office being for abortion,which no liberal did,instead they apponited judges that would just ignore the Constitution and write new law.It is not the job of the Supreme Court to write law like they did,they are not legislature's.This proves your polls are wrong and this is why no Democrat ran for abortion and then had laws passed through Congress to make it law.