Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[comana]

basic survival 2000yrs ago took more know how than most people have lol

Life was harder in the past fore sure. Medical understanding was very basic if at all and lifespans were considerably shorter.

If you has to choose between a doctor trained with knowledge from 2000 yrs ago or one trained with modern knowledge, which would you honestly choose?

 

[Desk trauma]

curious as to why you feel so confident you could survive 2000yrs ago?

Had I been around 2,000 years about I would have been brought up in that environment and taken on board the knowledge needed to survive in the era in the same way I did being brought up in this one which is all beside the point I was addressing about the absurd claim that the people thousands of years ago had the same level of understanding of pregnancy that we do now.

 

[comana]

Lol typical answer from someone who has an opinion but knows they can't back up their claim with data.

If I spent hours researching would you even give it a serious pass over? I doubt it. If you had any interest in opposing sources you would have already researched for yourself.

 

[Desk trauma]

I don’t trust pro-life sources as they usually misrepresent the data. Also most abortions are medical, prior to 8 weeks and surgical abortion is needed for the much smaller percentage that happen after after the first trimester.

My favorite was the study that was trying to down play the effectiveness of condoms that was revealed to have studied a quality of latex that wasn't used in condoms. That got chucked down the memory hole in short order after that got around.

 

[Lost Witness]

Life was harder in the past fore sure. Medical understanding was very basic if at all and lifespans were considerably shorter.

If you has to choose between a doctor trained with knowledge from 2000 yrs ago or one trained with modern knowledge, which would you honestly choose?

todays even though doctors misdiagnose all the TIME and they've got the training? and they have "advancements"
whereas someone from 2000 yrs ago who legitimately loved their patients with the same training? there'd be no contest?
However the comment Pipp had made was acknowledging the science in the Bible as something todays science is just catching up with
So let's keep this conversation honest and quit trying to manipulate it to prove a biased point that's ethically WRONG,
Abortion is Murder, Period.

 

[Desk trauma]

todays even though doctors misdiagnose all the TIME and they've got the training? and they have "advancements"
whereas someone from 2000 yrs ago who legitimately loved their patients with the same training? there'd be no contest?

Thats very unclear, which Dr would you chose? One with a modern education or one with medical knowledge from 2,000 years ago?

 

[YahuahSaves]

If I spent hours researching would you even give it a serious pass over? I doubt it. If you had any interest in opposing sources you would have already researched for yourself.

I have. But just like you, I don't trust the pro-choice data, it's skewed to give the impression that killing the unborn is OK. Often upon unscientific data such as "embryos not being human", etc. Plenty of data for pro-life in this thread, even statistical data for the top reasons for abortions in the west, and they're all selfish ones.

 

[comana]

todays even though doctors misdiagnose all the TIME and they've got the training? and they have "advancements"
whereas someone from 2000 yrs ago who legitimately loved their patients with the same training? there'd be no contest,
However the comment Pipp had made was acknowledging the science in the Bible as something todays science is just catching up with
So let's keep this conversation honest and quit trying to manipulate it to prove a biased point that's ethically WRONG,
Abortion is Murder, Period.

The Bible is not a science book. So no, today’s science is not just now catching up with it.

When it come to abortion I will always side in favor of the woman who has the choice. My concern will always be with her first. I will support her any way she chooses because she is the one who needs it.

 

[Lost Witness]

The Bible is not a science book. So no, today’s science is not just now catching up with it.

When it come to abortion I will always side in favor of the woman who has the choice. My concern will always be with her first. I will support her any way she chooses because she is the one who needs it.

Nobody said the bible was a science book?
I'll trust the Bible over any "science Book" or any academic resource any day
Getting Rid a of child isn't a "need" it's a act of selfishness and is morally wrong.
Oxygen is a Need, Food to survive is a NEED, Killing a child isn't a Need,
It's Murder.

 

[lismore]

There is no reason to doubt someone is a Christian just because he or she disagrees on this one issue, whatever the opinion differences are.

Hello! According to the Holy Bible such a situation is possible:
Titus 1:16, ESV: They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works.

As for the specific issue of abortion: For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-14)

From this passage we see that the unborn child is created by God, their life planned out by their wonderful and Holy creator from the moment of conception. God Bless

 

[Diamond72]

If you has to choose between a doctor trained with knowledge from 2000 yrs ago or one trained with modern knowledge, which would you honestly choose?

Doctors are a leading cause of death. It is just that people would die a lot sooner and not live as long without them.

 

[comana]

I have. But just like you, I don't trust the pro-choice data, it's skewed to give the impression that killing the unborn is OK. Often upon unscientific data such as "embryos not being human", etc. Plenty of data for pro-life in this thread, even statistical data for the top reasons for abortions in the west, and they're all selfish ones.

We can agree then that sources in this type of debate are useless to change minds already made up.

Most decisions we make are selfish to some degree if not entirely so why would abortion be any different.

 

[YahuahSaves]

My favorite was the study that was trying to down play the effectiveness of condoms

Was that a pro-choice study?
Why is abortion better than contraception?

Here are some reasons for abortion in post #24

 

[comana]

Doctors are a leading cause of death. It is just that people would die a lot sooner and not live as long without them.

In other words, they are on the whole a benefit to health.

 

[Diamond72]

Nobody said the bible was a science book?

Science helps us to understand the Bible. Esp the Scientific Method. There is never a contradiction and no one has ever used Science to show any error in the Bible.

 

[YahuahSaves]

acknowledging the science in the Bible as something todays science is just catching up with

I was talking about morality, not science.

 

[Desk trauma]

Was that a pro-choice study?

It was promoted by anti-abortion/anti-sex education groups.

Why is abortion better than contraception?

Not something I said.

Here are some reasons for abortion in post #24

Which I have indicated I take no issue with in other posts.

 

[Diamond72]

In other words, they are on the whole a benefit to health.

Yes, half the people would not be alive if it were not for doctors.

 

[YahuahSaves]

We can agree then that sources in this type of debate are useless to change minds already made up.

Most decisions we make are selfish to some degree if not entirely so why would abortion be any different.

Agreed. But pro-lifers are thinking of others before themselves.

 

[Lost Witness]

They obviously did, because science has only just recently proven the prior knowledge.

^^^^^^^^^^

I was talking about morality, not science.

where?