Baby butchers admitting prenatal infantacide kills a baby

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
yet 12-week fetuses cannot live

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.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
There is also no scientific evidence that God does NOT exist. Which makes those who don't believe a bunch of old ninnies who relish in ridiculing everything that THEY don't believe in.
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.
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
How about all you fog horns who have the audacity to suggest, determine, and expound about what a woman chooses to do with her own womb put your money where your mouth is. I submit you create an organization that agrees to adopt at least one child per pro lifer. You don't even have to love the child. Just be willing to provide whatever resources are necessary to allow the child to reach adulthood.This seems like a perfect solution to me. If you wanted to you could even indoctrinate the sweet little cherub with all your imperial wisdom. This way the child isn't likely to fall prey to what it's evil, murderous mother was willing to do. Jerry Falwell ran his mouth like you jokers but he put his money where his mouth was and gave these pregnant girls a free education if they would agree to not abort and either keep the child or give it up for adoption. The entire world could then truly respect your way of thinking if you were to choose a path like this. How about it? Raise your hand.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
It doesn't matter what she does with her own womb. I could care less. It's the other person that matters. It's the one who can't speak for himself that's the point.

You must be talking about the father, since that's the only other person involved.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
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.


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.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
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.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
The heart starts beating about 18-22 days. Brain waves can be detected as early as 6 weeks

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:

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
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.

shooter has already said he agrees with abortion in the cases of rape incest and the health of the mother
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
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.



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
It doesn't matter what she does with her own womb. I could care less. It's the other person that matters. It's the one who can't speak for himself that's the point.

You must be talking about the father, since that's the only other person involved.
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:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
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.
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.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
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.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
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.
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.

There for, just because there is no scientific evidence proving the existence of God is no reason to not believe.
By the same reasoning, there is also no reason to 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.
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.

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.
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.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
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.

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.
 
Top