The explanatory power of evolution

[AV1611VET]

They don't consider them to be a person because they don't want them. That doesn't mean they're not people. It means they're trying to justify mass murder of the most innocent people on the planet by playing with semantics.

Technological holocaust.

 

[Speedwell]

They don't consider them to be a person because they don't want them. That doesn't mean they're not people. It means they're trying to justify mass murder of the most innocent people on the planet by playing with semantics.

Being hyperbolic and snarky again? They really don't consider them to be people--it's not just semantics. But that's a good example of why I oppose Bible Christians on this; if you can't be honest about your opponents' position I can't trust you..

 

[sfs]

They don't consider them to be a person because they don't want them. That doesn't mean they're not people. It means they're trying to justify mass murder of the most innocent people on the planet by playing with semantics.

You don't get to make up other people's motivations just so you can feel good about hating them.

 

[Speedwell]

You don't get to make up other people's motivations just so you can feel good about hating them.

Now, now. I think the poor fellow is guilty of nothing more than paying too much attention fo Fundamentalist clergy.

 

[sfs]

Now, now. I think the poor fellow is guilty of nothing more than paying too much attention fo Fundamentalist clergy.

Oh, quite possibly. I was putting the same procedure into action: ascribing motives to someone without much justification. Possibly not the best way of making progress.

 

[Galaxy Hunter]

You don't get to make up other people's motivations just so you can feel good about hating them.[/QUOTE

Now you're the one making things up claiming I hate them. I hate sins not sinners. So then what are the reasons people abort babies? There certainly are cases of rape and the life of the mother in danger. But the biggest reason is that a man and a woman made a stupid decision and they don't want the baby that is the result of that decision....so months later they pay a millionaire to dispose of their "problem"

 

[Speedwell]

Don't forget the rest, that they know that the fetus is really a person but go ahead and abort anyway, using semantics to justify it. I also see a strong subtext to the effect that they do it without remorse.

Have you ever known anyone who has had an abortion? How does that person fit your stereotype?

 

[sfs]

So then what are the reasons people abort babies?

My point is that they (in most cases, anyway) don't think what they're aborting is a baby. They don't think they're committing murder or killing a person. You can disagree with them on that all you want, but at least understand what they think they're doing.

 

[AV1611VET]

My point is that they (in most cases, anyway) don't think what they're aborting is a baby.

Thanks to science.

 

[Speedwell]

Thanks to science.

Since time out of mind. Does not the Bible say that human life begins at "quickening?"

 

[sfs]

Thanks to science.

No, not thanks to science. Science tells us nothing at all about when we should consider human life to begin. Thanks instead to people coming to the best decision they can with the information they have about what they should do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does not the Bible say that human life begins at "quickening?"

Ephhesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, ( by grace ye are saved; )

 

[AV1611VET]

No, not thanks to science.

Yes, thanks to science.

1. How many women would get an abortion if they knew it was a child they were aborting, and not "unwanted tissue" (fetus)?

2. How many women would get an abortion if it was against the law (i.e., murder)?

But it's not against the law, is it?

Removal of unwanted tissue is not the same as killing a baby, is it?

 

[David_M]

How did people justify abortion before there was a theory of evolution?

They read the OT and its instructions for abortion?

 

[sfs]

Yes, thanks to science.

Okay, let's see...

1. How many women would get an abortion if they knew it was a child they were aborting, and not "unwanted tissue" (fetus)?

Many fewer. But how are they supposed to "know" this? Because some guy on the internet says so? More to the point, nothing at all here about science -- science has no test to distinguish the categories of "child" and "fetus".

2. How many women would get an abortion if it was against the law (i.e., murder)?

Many fewer (although by no means zero). That's true of lots and lots of things.

But it's not against the law, is it?

No, it's not.

Okay, so when are you going to get the part that anything to do with science?

 

[AV1611VET]

Many fewer. But how are they supposed to "know" this?

The Bible says it, that settles it.

More to the point, nothing at all here about science -- science has no test to distinguish the categories of "child" and "fetus".

The Bible calls it a "child in the womb" or a "babe in the womb."

Science has plutoed those terms to "fetus."

Many fewer (although by no means zero).

When an abortion is performed ... no matter how it's done ... it should be considered against the law.

When God comes back for us, I want Him to see abortion on our books as a crime.

Okay, so when are you going to get the part that anything to do with science?

Science provided the breakthrough terminology that got abortion legalized.

 

[Speedwell]

When an abortion is performed ... no matter how it's done ... it should be considered against the law.

Then only rich would would be able to have abortions--which was how it was back in the day when abortion was illegal here.

 

[sfs]

The Bible says it, that settles it.

No, the Bible doesn't say it.

The Bible calls it a "child in the womb" or a "babe in the womb."

The Bible contains none of those words. I know you don't believe this, but the Bible is not written in English. The Bible also says nothing about when we should treat human life as beginning.

When an abortion is performed ... no matter how it's done ... it should be considered against the law.

Yes, I know that's your opinion. I see no reason to give your opinion any weight in this matter.

When God comes back for us, I want Him to see abortion on our books as a crime.

I prefer not to tell God what to do.

Science provided the breakthrough terminology that got abortion legalized.

From the year 1398: "And is propreliche ycleped fetus while it is in þe wombe in þe whiche it is susteyned and ynorisched and ybrought to parfyte schap of lymes and to lyf." Sorry, but the terminology predates the rise of modern science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then only rich would would be able to have abortions--which was how it was back in the day when abortion was illegal here.

What?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible contains none of those words.

Are we done now?

You just went off the deep end, and frankly, I don't like your colors.