Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Life was harder in the past fore sure. Medical understanding was very basic if at all and lifespans were considerably shorter.basic survival 2000yrs ago took more know how than most people have lol
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.curious as to why you feel so confident you could survive 2000yrs ago?
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.Lol typical answer from someone who has an opinion but knows they can't back up their claim with data.
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.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.
todays even though doctors misdiagnose all the TIME and they've got the training? and they have "advancements"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?
Thats very unclear, which Dr would you chose? One with a modern education or one with medical knowledge from 2,000 years ago?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?
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.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.
The Bible is not a science book. So no, today’s science is not just now catching up with it.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.
Nobody said the bible was a science book?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.
Hello! According to the Holy Bible such a situation is possible: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.
Doctors are a leading cause of death. It is just that people would die a lot sooner and not live as long without them.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?
We can agree then that sources in this type of debate are useless to change minds already made up.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.
Was that a pro-choice study?My favorite was the study that was trying to down play the effectiveness of condoms
In other words, they are on the whole a benefit to health.Doctors are a leading cause of death. It is just that people would die a lot sooner and not live as long without them.
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.Nobody said the bible was a science book?
I was talking about morality, not science.acknowledging the science in the Bible as something todays science is just catching up with
It was promoted by anti-abortion/anti-sex education groups.Was that a pro-choice study?
Not something I said.Why is abortion better than contraception?
Which I have indicated I take no issue with in other posts.Here are some reasons for abortion in post #24
Agreed. But pro-lifers are thinking of others before themselves.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.
^^^^^^^^^^They obviously did, because science has only just recently proven the prior knowledge.
where?I was talking about morality, not science.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?