This is why the pro-life movement gets laughed at

[Lacmeh]

OUtspoken, bleeding things out was done in the Middle Ages.

Yes, those whacky scientists, drilling holes in your head to operate cancer or relief overpressure. My what frauds, cancer and overpressure heal themselves?
Since the pro lifers want to press their point of view on other people, who aren´t even Christians and don´t care about Christian doctrine, I view them more whacky as scientists drillingg holes into heads...

 

[ocean]

Originally posted by Sauron
As usual, your example is not really parallel, LouisBooth.

Who is Louis Booth?

 

[goodgirl]

yeah... the thing that kills me is, by the time it even gets to court, the kid would be in kindergarten! LOL. and meanwhile, all the rapists and killers go free.

this georgia peach can say one thing: the state is one of the most corrupt anywhere. They've got much bigger fish to fry than executing babies.... believe me!

 

[dnich163]

Perhaps in a way the point raise; however ridiculous or funny we think it is, gets to the root of the issue here which is when do we as humans start to exist?
Is it conception, or a set time after this or is it the birth?

I think the taking of any life is serious and not to be ridiculed or laughed at.

Maybe this is the cause of so much suffering in the World, when we think that a created being is less than we are and we can easily dispense with it to suit ourselves.

This in no way diminishes the sorrow and pain that any expectant mother is going through in the decision making process on whether to abort or not, but we as a society must have certain values about this great gift of life and where it begins.

David

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Outspoken
" It happens once in awhile, but since scientists have substantial credibility"

Yup, as do most prolifers, great point.

Actually, pro-lifers do not have substantial credibility.  The list of activities I provided (bombing clinics, etc.) is one reason *why* they don't.

One person doesn't make the whole movement bad. Now you see my point, great job bro.

If that was your point, then you failed utterly in making it.

"This is a result of the abortion clinic bombings, throwing blood in people's faces, assassination of medical providers, placing extremist literature in the mail, proposing scary legislation, etc.
"

Real life scientists have done some pretty crazy things too. Lets drill a hole in your head, or bleed out stuff. Again emphasising my point, a few bad 'apples' don't ruin the bunch.

Except that your examples of "crazy things done by scientists" are several hundred years old, and pretty lame.  Given the timeframe in question, I'm not even sure one could call it science.

Its call a stereotype. the people that do those things are in the minority of the pro-life movement just like bad scientists are in the minority of the scientific field.

Except that in the pro-life movement, there are substantially more of these crazy folk doing silly things to damage the movement's credibility and influence. It is not like that with science. 

So your attempt at a parallel here falls flat on its face.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by ocean
Who is Louis Booth?

The poster currently named Outspoken is actually a Christianforums.com moderator named LouisBooth.

It's important to realize who you're really talking to, in such a debate.

 

[Outspoken]

"y what frauds, cancer and overpressure heal themselves?"

Exactly! People betraying the foundations of science, acting in a nonscientific way, exactly like people bombing abortion clinics and betrying the foundations of christianity and acting in a nonchristian way. I'm glad you saw the point of the anaology.


Saruon..

"Actually, pro-lifers do not have substantial credibility. The list of activities I provided (bombing clinics, etc.) is one reason *why* they don't."

then if you're being honest you'll have to admit the same about scientists, they don't have credabitity to you either. Well that is unless you're holding a double standard and being unhonest about the topic for purposes of building a strawman.

"Given the timeframe in question, I'm not even sure one could call it science."

Well in this case your personal opinion is quite wrong It was science at the time, and in the future people might look at things like dialysis and say the same type of things we do about bleeding people.

"Except that in the pro-life movement, there are substantially more of these crazy folk doing silly things to damage the movement's credibility and influence. "

to use your word, utterly UNTRUE statement. If you know anything about the prolife movement you know these are the extremeists. If you want to clame they are middle of the laners (thus the majority) you'll also be forces logically to admit the same about terrorists and Islam. Your choice

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Saruon..

"Actually, pro-lifers do not have substantial credibility. The list of activities I provided (bombing clinics, etc.) is one reason *why* they don't."

then if you're being honest you'll have to admit the same about scientists, they don't have credabitity to you either.

I am being honest.  And the same does not apply to scientists.

Scientists don't engage in anything like the list of activities I pointed out for the pro-life movement.  And the lame examples you dredged up were hundreds of years old, from a time when science was barely even defined.

Well that is unless you're holding a double standard and being unhonest about the topic for purposes of building a strawman.

I'm being very honest, and there's no double standard here. 

One group (scientists) has substantial credibility, and is not engaged in silly, dangerous and inflammatory activities. 

The other group (the pro-life movement) has problems with credibility, due in large part to the activities of some of its members.

The situation is not the same.

 

"Given the timeframe in question, I'm not even sure one could call it science."

[Well in this case your personal opinion is quite wrong

Incorrect; my opinion is precisely correct.  The Scientific Method wasn't even devised during the time you are discussing.

It was science at the time,

No, it wasn't.  It was superstition.

and in the future people might look at things like dialysis and say the same type of things we do about bleeding people.

Nonsense.  Dialysis is a proven therapy for renal system disease.  If it were not effective, people would be dying from kidney failure. 

"Except that in the pro-life movement, there are substantially more of these crazy folk doing silly things to damage the movement's credibility and influence. "

to use your word, utterly UNTRUE statement. If you know anything about the prolife movement you know these are the extremeists.

Irrelevant. The point is that there are more of them, and their wacko activities, than there are in science.  For that reason, the pro-life movement has more credibility issues than science.

 If you want to clame they are middle of the laners (thus the majority) you'll also be forces logically to admit the same about terrorists and Islam. Your choice

Wrong.  It has nothing to do with whether or not these nutcases and their activities are mainstream for the pro-lilfe movement.  That is a totally irrelevant question. The discussion here is on your claim that there is a valid comparison to be made between science and the pro-life movement.

Your comparison does not work, because:

1.  we know there are nutcases doing stupid and dangerous things in the pro-life movement.  But you've presented zero evidence of any such equivalent thing in science.  The only examples you offered were hundreds of years old, and don't represent science at all; and

2.  we know that the pro-life movement has credibilty issues.  But you've presented zero such credibilty issues in science. 

So the scorecard is not the same for the two groups, and thus your attempt to draw a comparison fails. 

 

[Outspoken]

"I am being honest. And the same does not apply to scientists."

okay, I guess you have a double standard then.

"The Scientific Method wasn't even devised during the time you are discussing."

OH, so you're saying galelo (sp) wasn't a scientist? whatever.
Just keep your double standard saruon.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"I am being honest. And the same does not apply to scientists."

okay, I guess you have a double standard then.

No double standard.  I just recognize when the comparison you draw isn't parallel.

"The Scientific Method wasn't even devised during the time you are discussing."

OH, so you're saying galelo (sp) wasn't a scientist? whatever.
Just keep your double standard saruon.

Galileo was a mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher.  He never tried bleeding, which was your example (remember)?

Would you like to try again, with a modern example?  Hmmm?

 

[Outspoken]

"No double standard. I just recognize when the comparison you draw isn't parallel."

Yup, you've got a double standard.

 

[Lacmeh]

Outspoken, you didn´t get it, did you?
Well, I never heard of any proven brain tumor, that healed itself. You might want to point me to a place, that proves, that no medical attention is needed to heal brain tumor in all cases.
I rather go to those whacky scientists, drilling holes into my head to operate it, than to go tu church and pray for healing. That has nothing to do with no faith in God(s). There is a saying, tat I think, applies to all religions. God helps those, who help themselves. Therefore, we are given the methods of modern medicine to get things healed. Always calling to God(s) for healing is a sign of lacking respect. We expect to do God(s) tasks for us, when we can do those same tasks ourselves.
Of course, our methods of operating will be viewed as crude and unrefined in a few hundred years in the future. But the point is, the methods are actually working now and doing the things intended. Which was not the case with bleeding a few hundred years back.
Wit the same reasoning, the pro lifers are just like the inquisition. The same mindset and any method is acceptable. Sounds to me the new inquisition.

 

[tamtam92]

I prefer praying for the surgeon that he does his work well. I trust man when I know God is with him.

 

[O'Mara]

Lacmeh, I agreed with a lot of your post but I don't think I understand what you meant here?

Wit the same reasoning, the pro lifers are just like the inquisition. The same mindset and any method is acceptable. Sounds to me the new inquisition.

Are you comparing someone who is against abortion to those responsible for the Spanish inquisition?

I don't see the relevance.

 

[Lacmeh]

Yes, indeed I do, using the same analogy techniques, Outspoken applies to scientists. If it is perfectly acceptable to compare modern medicine techniques, which must be proven over and over to work, before they may be applied to humans to something like the bleeding done in the Middle Ages, nwhich was done purely it was thought to work, then the same must be valid for the pro lifer movement, too.

What I find vastly interesting is, that the fringe groups, that condone bobmings, murder and terror acts, are as far as I know not denounced by other pro lifers publicitly. In comparison, with the current Muslim situation, this is shedding a whole new light on the situation. People claiming, that Islam is a violent religion, because leaders of this religion don´t denounce readliy enough the suicide bombers, but on the other hand, where are the Christian leaders denouncing terror acts against doctors doing abortion or clinics in which abortions are common practice?
The same reasoning for Islam used on pro life movement, will yield the result, that the pro life movement condones these acts, because they don´t speak against those acts.
Since I don´t know the pro life, or pro choice movement, I can´t give an accurate opinion, on what´s true. I am merely describing the impression an outside observer gets, while watching. (I personally think, most people will not condone these actions, but like the Islam debate, for outside impression the reaction or lack thereof of the leaders counts)

 

[Outspoken]

"I rather go to those whacky scientists, drilling holes into my head to operate it, than to go tu church and pray for healing"

why not do both? God works harder then they do

", are as far as I know not denounced by other pro lifers publicitly

http://www.gargaro.com/quotes.html

http://eaglesnesthome.com/peace.htm

 

[Lacmeh]

Outspoken, first you declare those people drilling holes in your head to operate cancer as whacky and state, that that doesn´t work, then you say, that you will go to them?
Does this make sense?
You gave two links, for about how many orgnaisations are there?
With the Islam analogy, every leader of every organisation has to denounce violence against pro lifers. After all, that is expected of the Muslim leaders, why not of the leaders of pro life organisations?

 

[tericl2]

Originally posted by Lacmeh
Yes, indeed I do, using the same analogy techniques, Outspoken applies to scientists. If it is perfectly acceptable to compare modern medicine techniques, which must be proven over and over to work, before they may be applied to humans to something like the bleeding done in the Middle Ages, nwhich was done purely it was thought to work, then the same must be valid for the pro lifer movement, too.

What I find vastly interesting is, that the fringe groups, that condone bobmings, murder and terror acts, are as far as I know not denounced by other pro lifers publicitly. In comparison, with the current Muslim situation, this is shedding a whole new light on the situation. People claiming, that Islam is a violent religion, because leaders of this religion don´t denounce readliy enough the suicide bombers, but on the other hand, where are the Christian leaders denouncing terror acts against doctors doing abortion or clinics in which abortions are common practice?
The same reasoning for Islam used on pro life movement, will yield the result, that the pro life movement condones these acts, because they don´t speak against those acts.
Since I don´t know the pro life, or pro choice movement, I can´t give an accurate opinion, on what´s true. I am merely describing the impression an outside observer gets, while watching. (I personally think, most people will not condone these actions, but like the Islam debate, for outside impression the reaction or lack thereof of the leaders counts)

Here is a story concerning the modern medical practices you seem so confident in. Hospital infections Due to lack of basic hygiene our illustrious doctors and medical institutions directly cause/contribute to America's fourth leading cause of death!!

Now, as far as pro-lifers not denouncing these lunatics killing doctors and planting explosives - where do you get your info?? Obviously you are completely out of touch with anyone or anything involved in/with the pro-life view and ideology. No serious pro-life organization that I know of has failed to condemn such violent and radical behavior. Your argument, just as most arguments from the anti-life side of the aisle is firmly based in emotion and utter lack of facts. If the abortions are such preferable alternatives to giving birth then why do Planned Parenthood and other groups resist so vehemently the free distribution of information about abortion alternatives?
Why is Planned Parenthood RECRUITING kids as customers? And using taxpayer money to do it?? Rcruiting abortions
Recruit article

You are right in at least one point - you can't give an accurate opinion. And your perception comes from what and to whom you willingly listen. This is your choice and so, your responsibility - try to get more well rounded information from a variety of sources. Just by observing your statements I can say that my impression is that you haven't done this. And you sound anti-life so I assume you willingly swallow all the appropriate propaganda.

You see, my picture of you isn't very much different from your predisposed view of pro-lifers!!

 

[Lacmeh]

Tericl, for the record, I was not writing about problems in hospitals.
For one thing, there are antibiotica resistant strains of bacteria, usually because of abuse of antibiotica by patients. These strains are of course everywhere. Lack of hygiene is one factor, ignorance on patients part another of many.
I was writing about the procedures. Wether or not there are problems with hygeiene has absolutely nothing to do with the working of a certain procedure, like cutting open the head and operate out the cancerous cells.
Outspoken called scientists, who do this as whacky and claimed, that healing through prayer works better.
Of course the matter of hygiene is a direct matter of cost. Since hospitals in USA are forced to produce revenue, they cut costs everywhere they can. But that does not invalidate certain medical procedures, it just invalidates the medical healthcare system.
As for the pro life, pro choice thing.
Can you give me links to those organisations, who denounce every single terror attck on persons and institutions subnjected to those attacks? If you can´t provide them, then they are in the same predicament, the Muslim leaderrs are in. They would then support those same attacks. If you apply same standards.
You imply that I am anti life. that in itself is an attack and insult. I support the right for Christian women to choose what to do wit their bodies. And I support the right of other beleif systems not to subjected to Christian legislation. It would be fine by me, if the Christian Churches would declare abortion as wrong and esxcomunicate or whatever with those who do them and support them. I wouldn´t want to be in such a church abnd would oppose this decision. But it is quite another quality to want a legislation for a simply religious matter, which doesn´t even affect a vast majority of the population.
Well it is the right of every church to choose, which people may attend. But it is not within their rights to force their beliefs through state laws onto other faiths (or lack thereof, like agnostics or atheists).

 

[tericl2]

Lacmeh,

Seeing as how most of these horrific instances we are talking about happened quite a while ago I don't know the details necessary to perform a comprehensive search of who condemned it and who didn't. Please let me know specific events and the relevent details and I will check with some organizations to find out their stance on those events.

I didn't "imply" that you are anti-life. I said it very plainly and clearly. Anyone who supports and defends the wholesale killing of a living being is anti-life. Sorry if that is offensive to you, but it is your own choice that is causing your offense.

BTW, I am not asking for (nor are most pro-lifers) "Christian" laws. We are asking for moral laws. The sanctity of life, while important to Christians, is not just a Christian value but has been a value the United States has held from its inception. A value for which we have fought wars!!