Questions about origins of life timeline

[dad]

You think men being in control prevents abortion? Tell that to the more than one hundred million "missing girls" who have been aborted in the most sexist and often religious countries by order of the husbands who want sons and not daughters.

Of the hundreds of millions in total that is a small percent! In a sinful world, not even a more God normal run society would be perfect. Let's test your idea then. In this imperfect sinful world, before women got the vote (voted out people who would not let them kill and be promiscuous etc) how many children were killed each year?

In the US in 1900 apparently killing kids was illegal!

"In 1900, abortion had been banned at any time during pregnancy (except when necessary to save the woman's life) by every state in the Union."

History of Abortion

It got so bad that some countries have banned allowing people to learn the sex of their unborn children. Is that what you want, people disregarding the life of women from conception to death?

Don't use other people killing kids as an excuse for killing them! Fact is that women vote in big numbers to ensure their right to murder and fornicate is upheld. Sacred they might say.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Of the hundreds of millions in total that is a small percent! In a sinful world, not even a more God normal run society would be perfect. Let's test your idea then. In this imperfect sinful world, before women got the vote (voted out people who would not let them kill and be promiscuous etc) how many children were killed each year?

In the US in 1900 apparently killing kids was illegal!

"In 1900, abortion had been banned at any time during pregnancy (except when necessary to save the woman's life) by every state in the Union."

History of Abortion



Don't use other people killing kids as an excuse for killing them! Fact is that women vote in big numbers to ensure their right to murder and fornicate is upheld. Sacred they might say.

You think I like abortion? You think I want it to exist, do you think I want abortions to be performed? I don't old man, I would rather pro choice and pro life people to drop this pointless, stagnant argument and actually help to fix the social issues that drive the demand for abortion to begin with, because just banning abortion is going to be about as helpful as banning alcohol in the early 1900s was; people continue to do it, but it is less regulated and safe, and more people die.

Just imagine if all the money both sides spend to spread their crap went to making prenatal care, contraception, and sex ed more comprehensive and available, I hope to see a world without abortion too, I just think that banning it isn't going to do it. Do you understand now, I don't think making it illegal is going to save enough babies or prevent childhood suffering, I want a solution which significantly decreases the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and improves the futures of those which are unplanned. I care about what happens to the kids after they are born too, and I don't want to save babies from abortion just to have them die thanks to child abuse later.

 

[dad]

Well, sex in and of itself is kinda gross if you think about it and you know, sometimes the truth isn't pretty.

I disagree. Birds and bees and such are amazing.

I did say very much removed, we are the result of flatworm sex.

Wow. I would be ashamed to admit that if I was an evo.

Go back farther though, and you realize every atom in our body was forged in a star, and that is pretty awesome if you ask me .

Nonsense. That is purely inside the religion of the misinformed. God created us. Stars were not involved at all.

How I define evolution: evolution is the process by which species change and adapt to their environment across populations and generations, by which mutations introduce new traits and changes in existing traits, and those which serve to improve survival and reproduction (especially reproduction) become more prevalent thanks to improved reproductive success while those which are not become less prevalent. As the environment is always changing, species never become "perfectly suited to it", and evolution never ceases.

Yes, we were built to be able to change and adapt! Rapidly in the former times apparently also.

Now the second part I must nix. It was not thanks to improved reproductive success that the changes occurred in the former nature. It is in this present state and nature that reproduction is a central player in adapting and changing. You just assume it was also so in the far past! Period. Full stop. I triple dare you to prove otherwise.

Do note that many traits are advantageous across multiple environments, thus are more long lasting and widespread than others. This is also why creatures such as sharks don't seem to have changed much compared to mammals,

Maybe. Or maybe you do not know how much mammal changed and why. Maybe there was less need for a fish that ate dead stuff or sick stuff to change! Maybe also the fossil record is very incomplete, so we do not know much about animals before they could even fossilize!

their environment never changed so drastically that most of the traits they had millions of years ago became obsolete, so the "naturally selected" traits remained essentially the same, although they have decreased in size (the sharks of today are minnows compared to those of the past).

The sizes of fish and animals in the former state may not be related to what you claim, but more to the nature of that day!

 

[justlookinla]

You think I like abortion? You think I want it to exist, do you think I want abortions to be performed? I don't old man, I would rather pro choice and pro life people to drop this pointless, stagnant argument and actually help to fix the social issues that drive the demand for abortion to begin with, because just banning abortion is going to be about as helpful as banning alcohol in the early 1900s was; people continue to do it, but it is less regulated and safe, and more people die.

In my opinion, one of the social issues which makes abortion more acceptable is Darwinism. Track the rise in abortion rates with the rise in the teaching of Darwinism in schools and you'll see a correlation.

When human life is cheapened to the point of it being a random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless creation then the view that killing a baby is acceptable.

Just imagine if all the money both sides spend to spread their crap went to making prenatal care, contraception, and sex ed more comprehensive and available, I hope to see a world without abortion too, I just think that banning it isn't going to do it. Do you understand now, I don't think making it illegal is going to save enough babies or prevent childhood suffering, I want a solution which significantly decreases the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and improves the futures of those which are unplanned. I care about what happens to the kids after they are born too, and I don't want to save babies from abortion just to have them die thanks to child abuse later.

There is no solution as long as the teaching that a baby is simply another life form with no inherent value, other than procreation. There is no solution as long as abortion is presented as a socially acceptable behavior instead of grievous sin against God.

 

[dad]

You think I like abortion? You think I want it to exist, do you think I want abortions to be performed? I don't old man, I would rather pro choice and pro life people to drop this pointless, stagnant argument and actually help to fix the social issues that drive the demand for abortion to begin with, because just banning abortion is going to be about as helpful as banning alcohol in the early 1900s was; people continue to do it, but it is less regulated and safe, and more people die.

Funny that this 'drive and demand' came largely after suffrage!

Just imagine if all the money both sides spend to spread their crap went to making prenatal care, contraception, and sex ed more comprehensive and available, I hope to see a world without abortion too, I just think that banning it isn't going to do it.

There was lots of money wasted and around before women voted to murder kids. Moot point.

Do you understand now, I don't think making it illegal is going to save enough babies or prevent childhood suffering, I want a solution which significantly decreases the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and improves the futures of those which are unplanned.

If most baby murdering happened as a result of women being more 'liberated' then one solution might be for them to be less 'liberated'! I do not feel Manson should be liberated...set loose on others to do what he might wish to do.

I care about what happens to the kids after they are born too, and I don't want to save babies from abortion just to have them die thanks to child abuse later.

The solution to caring for babies is not to kill them. The same is true of the poor, for example...if there are poor always what should we do, by your logic to them?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ha, you have lost your touch dad, you completely have dropped scripture at this point. Your issue is that you cannot assume that your prior state idea is right, you have to be able to refute evolution in case your own idea is wrong, because you haven't even gathered sufficient evidence for it to be considered a theory, and it isn't a testable hypothesis. Heck, it isn't even a scripturally sound idea. The reason I can't refute you is because you haven't even given me enough substance that I could try. Do you not get that an idea can be so transparent and flawed that refuting it is pointless and impossible, it is like me claiming that we are watched by invisible dinosaur ghosts we can't touch or detect, you can't prove me wrong but I have 0 evidence whatsoever to think I am right, because I can't find any evidence to support my idea any more than you could find evidence to refute it. This is fantasy.

 

[dad]

Ha, you have lost your touch dad, you completely have dropped scripture at this point. Your issue is that you cannot assume that your prior state idea is right,

Why could I not assume what God said was right?? Absurd. Not even a shadow of an issue!

you have to be able to refute evolution in case your own idea is wrong, because you haven't even gathered sufficient evidence for it to be considered a theory, and it isn't a testable hypothesis.

What science has the ability to test is not my problem in any way at all! The bible says we were created by Good, not a product of some sick flatworm sex as you suggest! In case you forgot what you said more than once, here is a quote from YOU!


"we are the result of flatworm sex" -you

Heck, it isn't even a scripturally sound idea. The reason I can't refute you is because you haven't even given me enough substance that I could try.

If Noah had all animals on the ark, and we have so many species now, that has to mean fast evolving.

Do you not get that an idea can be so transparent and flawed that refuting it is pointless and impossible, it is like me claiming that we are watched by invisible dinosaur ghosts we can't touch or detect, you can't prove me wrong but I have 0 evidence whatsoever to think I am right, because I can't find any evidence to support my idea any more than you could find evidence to refute it. This is fantasy.

You would need to prove that reproduction was the main engine of evolving, in the past, for example, to make the claim. Back to the drawing board for you kid.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Funny that this 'drive and demand' came largely after suffrage!
There was lots of money wasted and around before women voted to murder kids. Moot point.

If most baby murdering happened as a result of women being more 'liberated' then one solution might be for them to be less 'liberated'! I do not feel Manson should be liberated...set loose on others to do what he might wish to do.

The solution to caring for babies is not to kill them. The same is true of the poor, for example...if there are poor always what should we do, by your logic to them?

did you ever consider that one of the biggest drives that makes women choose abortion isn't selfishly wanting to live without responsibility, but financial? Women in the United States get pathetic leaves for child care, often about one or two weeks unpaid, and then what do you want single parents (most women who get abortions are unmarried, and have to support themselves) to do? A single woman can't just not work, if the parents of the mother and the father refuse or can't provide support they are stuck with very limited, hardly great options. Compared to the months of paid leave often both parents get in other developed countries, and noting their far lower infant mortality and abortion rates, I view steps like that to be a good start. I think that if we make that first year of care less financially crippling, the most at risk group for abortion, single women with financial difficulties, will no longer feel pressured into feeling that is the only option they have.

 

[dad]

did you ever consider that one of the biggest drives that makes women choose abortion isn't selfishly wanting to live without responsibility, but financial?

No. Woman make more money since they started worshiping careers above God men and family!

Women in the United States get pathetic leaves for child care, often about one or two weeks unpaid, and then what do you want single parents (most women who get abortions are unmarried, and have to support themselves) to do?

?? Leaves? What did they do beside kill kids before they got a job!?

A single woman can't just not work, if the parents of the mother and the father refuse or can't provide support they are stuck with very limited, hardly great options.

Why is she single? What did single women used to do? There is no divine right to run around having sex while unmarried! That is wrong. Now if one had a faithful Christian man around, that one could get married to if a baby happened along, that might be different. Consequences. No free lunch. Do the crime do the time.

Compared to the months of paid leave often both parents get in other developed countries, and noting their far lower infant mortality and abortion rates, I view steps like that to be a good start.

Supporting people and families and kids is great. But not getting a welfare check is not a license to kill babies!

I think that if we make that first year of care less financially crippling, the most at risk group for abortion, single women with financial difficulties, will no longer feel pressured into feeling that is the only option they have.

You have my vote. Places like Quebec (I think) pay women to have babies and pay them as they grow every month also. I am all for family friendly policies.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You forgot single women includes those whose husbands die, and rape victims. Surely you don't want rape victims to marry those who raped them? Still, sex happens, you know, you aren't going to prevent premarital sex I can tell you that, gosh men don't even have any physical indication of having sex, and the one women have is unreliable as the hymen can and often does break from non sex related means. And even if they were [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (apparently, a four letter word starting with an s and ending with a t for sexually loose people is censored), should their kids suffer for it? I don't think so, not the kid's fault.

It wouldn't be welfare, I think programs which make the workplace more child friendly, insurance covering daycare, and other such things would make a huge difference, you could even have programs to help find jobs for families with young children to help insure financial stability. This would also decrease child abuse and child hunger.

I feel that doing these things would be more helpful than the pro life/pro choice standoff money pit. What a waste of time, money, and energy.

 

[dad]

You forgot single women includes those whose husbands die, and rape victims. Surely you don't want rape victims to marry those who raped them?

They are a minority. There was rape before the abortion floodgates opened also. One sin does not justify another.

Still, sex happens, you know, you aren't going to prevent premarital sex I can tell you that, gosh men don't even have any physical indication of having sex, and the one women have is unreliable as the hymen can and often does break from non sex related means. And even if they were [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], should their kids suffer for it? I don't think so, not the kid's fault.

How could the kids suffer more than to be snuffed? Sex means kids. When you artificially change that, it masks sin, but the gruesome results are still there. Refusing to cross your legs in no excuse for murder.

It wouldn't be welfare, I think programs which make the workplace more child friendly, insurance covering daycare, and other such things would make a huge difference, you could even have programs to help find jobs for families with young children to help insure financial stability. This would also decrease child abuse and child hunger.

Great, call it what you like. Helping kids and families is cool.

I feel that doing these things would be more helpful than the pro life/pro choice standoff money pit. What a waste of time, money, and energy.

Helping poor parents is not something that we need to exchange for having them not kill people!

 

[PsychoSarah]

They are a minority. There was rape before the abortion floodgates opened also. One sin does not justify another.


How could the kids suffer more than to be snuffed? Sex means kids. When you artificially change that, it masks sin, but the gruesome results are still there. Refusing to cross your legs in no excuse for murder.

Great, call it what you like. Helping kids and families is cool.

Helping poor parents is not something that we need to exchange for having them not kill people!

Hmm, help the children so that abortion decreases, or waste decades and millions upon millions of dollars to ban abortion (unsuccessfully) and claim you are helping kids anyways... Seems pretty obvious to me which one will work.

I don't see an issue in ensuring a stable living environment for young children to help decrease abortion rates, as opposed to having children born into unstable and abusive environments because apparently helping people financially to decrease abortion rates doesn't work for you. It isn't like we are paying people off not to have them, we are just decreasing the financial pressures which drive many women to get abortion. You could literally cut the number of abortions per year by 60% within less than a decade without having to make it illegal and risking ally way abortions or having the mega feminists go after you.

 

[dad]

Hmm, help the children so that abortion decreases, or waste decades and millions upon millions of dollars to ban abortion (unsuccessfully) and claim you are helping kids anyways... Seems pretty obvious to me which one will work.

Why should there be a need to ban murder? If you ask me to donate to that cause, all I can tell you is whether you'll have to wait!

I don't see an issue in ensuring a stable living environment for young children to help decrease abortion rates, as opposed to having children born into unstable and abusive environments because apparently helping people financially to decrease abortion rates doesn't work for you.

Before a child is alive, the need for any living environment or anything else doesn't yet exist.

It isn't like we are paying people off not to have them, we are just decreasing the financial pressures which drive many women to get abortion.

What drives men to kill? You think it is merely financial pressure? If we forget all else and just focus on the killing, we can forget excuses as to why people feel they needed to kill! Cry me a river...just don't do it. Period.

You could literally cut the number of abortions per year by 60% within less than a decade without having to make it illegal and risking ally way abortions or having the mega feminists go after you.

Go after me? They usually prefer to murder the helpless. Cowards. Slime.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why should there be a need to ban murder? If you ask me to donate to that cause, all I can tell you is whether you'll have to wait!



Before a child is alive, the need for any living environment or anything else doesn't yet exist.



What drives men to kill? You think it is merely financial pressure? If we forget all else and just focus on the killing, we can forget excuses as to why people feel they needed to kill! Cry me a river...just don't do it. Period.

Go after me? They usually prefer to murder the helpless. Cowards. Slime.

Look, it is common knowledge that asking people to do little things and having their cooperation first makes them more receptive to big requests than just outright forcing the big issue. Baby steps dad, baby steps. Besides, I think my way ends more positively and peacefully than yours does dad.

Sure, abortions won't stop, however, abortion clinics are businesses, they require a certain amount of business before they close down. Reduce abortions enough and they will go bankrupt and close down without people screaming "They Are Trying to Suppress Women by Taking Away Their Rights to Their Bodies". You don't kill a snake by chopping slowly up its tail, you chop off the head, the source of the problem. And the source of abortion isn't it being illegal, after all back ally abortions were part of the support for making it legal, but rather unwanted pregnancies to unprepared mothers. Take that out if the equation and abortions will just trickle to a stop on their own without it even having to become illegal.

 

[dad]

Look, it is common knowledge that asking people to do little things and having their cooperation first makes them more receptive to big requests than just outright forcing the big issue. Baby steps dad, baby steps. Besides, I think my way ends more positively and peacefully than yours does dad.

Except your way first allows the 50 million murders or whatever to happen, and then preaches some pie in the sky phony little solution. That is like saying 'all wars would end if we gave people extra welfare'! In your dreams.

Sure, abortions won't stop,

They will all stop soon actually forever.

however, abortion clinics are businesses, they require a certain amount of business before they close down.

So did the German holocaust centers. Yet they were shut down against their will.

Reduce abortions enough and they will go bankrupt and close down without people screaming "They Are Trying to Suppress Women by Taking Away Their Rights to Their Bodies". You don't kill a snake by chopping slowly up its tail, you chop off the head, the source of the problem. And the source of abortion isn't it being illegal, after all back ally abortions were part of the support for making it legal, but rather unwanted pregnancies to unprepared mothers. Take that out if the equation and abortions will just trickle to a stop on their own without it even having to become illegal.

'Reduce the need for war, by giving everyone plenty'! No. Sin is the cause of both poverty and murder!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Except your way first allows the 50 million murders or whatever to happen, and then preaches some pie in the sky phony little solution. That is like saying 'all wars would end if we gave people extra welfare'! In your dreams.


They will all stop soon actually forever.

So did the German holocaust centers. Yet they were shut down against their will.

'Reduce the need for war, by giving everyone plenty'! No. Sin is the cause of both poverty and murder!

Actually, my solution would reduce that to maybe 10 million (if you don't count Communist China and its population controls forcing abortions) if they were done across the globe. Of course, that would be an unrealistic expectation, seeing as most countries have water shortages and other more pressing matters, but I do think that developed countries are perfectly capable of cutting abortions in half in less than a decade, maybe eliminate it almost completely within my lifetime. I have to try to be realistic, sure I would like to think that there is some great solution which would end all abortion without conflict resulting from it today, but I highly doubt that. I am looking for a solution which people would actually agree to on both the pro choice and pro life sides, and that takes tact and compromise.

Holocaust death camps weren't shut down by the government which started them, you honestly think that if Hitler remained in power that they would have remained shut down or even shut down at all? But this detracts from our conversation.

Sin is the endgame of humanity dad. I don't recall god ever saying that we can't try to reduce sin, even if the bible makes statements suggesting it is a futile effort, we won't know unless we try. Will you try to help progress towards peace like me dad, or will you be stuck in a self inflicted sense of defeatism waiting on the apocalypse like so many others dissatisfied with the world and yet unwilling to actively try to change it?

 

[biggles53]

In my opinion, one of the social issues which makes abortion more acceptable is Darwinism. Track the rise in abortion rates with the rise in the teaching of Darwinism in schools and you'll see a correlation.

When human life is cheapened to the point of it being a random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless creation then the view that killing a baby is acceptable.



There is no solution as long as the teaching that a baby is simply another life form with no inherent value, other than procreation. There is no solution as long as abortion is presented as a socially acceptable behavior instead of grievous sin against God.

Only one thing wrong with your argument.....it's wrong...!

As has been clearly pointed out to you already, using your own figures, abortion rates worldwide have been steadily DECREASING.....!......and this at a time when the dreaded 'Darwinism' has been steadily INCREASING...!

But hey, don't let the truth stand in the way.....

 

[biggles53]

Now....answer the really important question...

Does your god possess sexual organs or not...?

And why...?

 

[madaz]

People who toss around words like homophobia or sexist just tell us their position on God.

Yes, its unfortunate that a theist can be identified, just by him/her tossing those words around alone.

 

[dad]

Now....answer the really important question...

Does your god possess sexual organs or not...?

And why...?

That is unknown. Most would assume no, He is spiritual, so our physical counterpart representation of things spiritual..(body parts) only reflect things of spiritual nature.

I would have to ask if Jesus risen body had body parts? He ate. He had hands, etc. So..?