A Christian man's viewpoint: "For what it's worth, I think abortion may well be a sin......."

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, Casualfanboy16 said:

Dang, well I thought about that sorta. I mean predestination and all that. I don't know the complexities of all that shit, if any, but yeah God is slacking on his job. Or he isn't slacking and just wants to make people come crawling back to worship him because he meant for Adam and Eve to be harmed by the snake, which in turn, fucked the rest of us over. He could've dealt with him from the very beginning but nope. Gotta make us suffer so we can depend on him, I guess.

 

I was more so making a joke like BAM! Just whack the fucker over the head and the problem would be solved. Unless Satan can get back up from that. Then just beat him again. And again. And again. And again.

 

It's a nice thought Casual.

 

But isn't that a bit like pitting Pee Wee Herman against Brock Lesnar?

 

You just KNOW what the outcome's going to be.

 

 

Or, if you're Edgarcito  -  no you don't.

 

Because it would be presumptuous of him to assume an outcome, given that ultimately he just doesn't know.

 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Me personally I'm OK with abortion up until the third trimester. I think it is a sick and disgusting act of murder after that. Six months should be plenty of time for the mother to decide whether she wants abortion or not. 

 

In the third trimester it is feasible for the fetus to survive in an incubator. In my opinion if the fetus is able to survive with modern medicine like the rest of us humans. That is a life. 

 

Unless the mothers life is endangered I think late term abortions in the third trimester should be forever banned. 

 

DB

[mwc]

     Late termination of pregnancy

 

 

Reasons[edit]

United States[edit]

See also: Reasons for abortions

Reasons for late terminations of pregnancy include when a pregnant woman's health is at risk or when lethal fetal abnormalities have been detected.^[7][8]

A 2013 study found, after excluding abortion "on grounds of fetal anomaly or life endangerment", that women seeking late abortions "fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous". The study concluded that "bans on abortion after 20 weeks will disproportionately affect young women and women with limited financial resources".^[37]

England and Wales[edit]

The NHS records the reasons given for abortions at all stages of development. In 2015, 2,877 abortions were performed at 20 weeks or above, and only 230 of these at or beyond 24 weeks gestation. Of all abortions at 20 weeks or above, 23 (0.8%) were performed to save the life of the pregnant woman, 1,801 (63%) were performed for mental or physical health reasons, and 1046 (36%) were performed because of foetal abnormalities.^[38]

 

 

     mwc

 

[Edgarcito]

23 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

By the logic of that argument the government should dismantle all of its nuclear weapons and leave the US vulnerable to attack.

 

Because its presumptuous for government scientists to assume the outcome that these weapons will work as they were designed to.

 

And by the same logic the government should not attempt to put Americans back on the Moon.

 

Because its presumptuous for government scientists to assume the outcome that their spacecraft will work as they were designed to.

 

Nor should the government do anything or spend any money on anything that relies upon scientific assumptions.

 

Because ultimately they don't know. 

 

 

Catch is, science never claims to know anything to 100% confidence.  In science there will always be unknowns.  

 

You therefore have two choices.  Accept the unknowns and allow for them or do no science at all.

 

 

Are you going to give up your job right now Ed, because you ultimately don't know and are forced to make assumptions in your work? 

In the context to which we were speaking.....I was speaking of the extremes.  We have certainty in our world, but when it comes to whether a life is worth living, the government has no clue the outcome prior to birth....the potential of that life...

 

So it's actually very good logic Walter....least we might abort someone who would contribute to the world....while science is still deciding when life begins...  Continue on with your boobery.... 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Thx buddy, lest I fk up again…

[walterpthefirst]

33 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

In the context to which we were speaking.....I was speaking of the extremes.  We have certainty in our world, but when it comes to whether a life is worth living, the government has no clue the outcome prior to birth....the potential of that life...

 

So it's actually very good logic Walter....least we might abort someone who would contribute to the world....while science is still deciding when life begins...  Continue on with your boobery.... 

 

This was what you wrote yesterday, Ed.

 

 

Just like science, it's presumptuous to assume an outcome given we just don't ultimately know.  So yeah, it's wrong for the government to impose.

 

 

The context in which you were speaking was science.  You correctly stated that with science we just don't ultimately know.

 

So you were confirming that there is no certainty in science.  Which is why, it is necessary for scientists (and governments) to assume certain things.

 

And it is also necessary for you to assume certain things in your science work.  Because, as you said yesterday, there is no certainty in science.

 

 

But today you claim that there IS certainty in our world.

 

So where is this certainty Ed?

 

Could you please tell us where it is?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

This was what you wrote yesterday, Ed.

 

 

Just like science, it's presumptuous to assume an outcome given we just don't ultimately know.  So yeah, it's wrong for the government to impose.

 

 

The context in which you were speaking was science.  You correctly stated that with science we just don't ultimately know.

 

So you were confirming that there is no certainty in science.  Which is why, it is necessary for scientists (and governments) to assume certain things.

 

And it is also necessary for you to assume certain things in your science work.  Because, as you said yesterday, there is no certainty in science.

 

 

But today you claim that there IS certainty in our world.

 

So where is this certainty Ed?

 

Could you please tell us where it is?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

No, you tell all of us the certainty in the womb Walt…. The entire US is waiting for this answer prior to our next election….

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

No, you tell all of us the certainty in the womb Walt…. The entire US is waiting for this answer prior to our next election….

 

Yesterday you said that science cannot know things with certainty.

 

Today you saying that certainty can be known.

 

So, where is this knowable certainty?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yesterday you said that science cannot know things with certainty.

 

Today you saying that certainty can be known.

 

So, where is this knowable certainty?

 

 

Answer my question there Walter... you're the remit of scence/certainty expert...

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

Answer my question there Walter... you're the remit of scence/certainty expert...

 

It's not within the remit of science to give absolute certainties.

 

Now, having answered your question, please answer mine.

 

Where is this knowable certainty in the world?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

You didn’t answer any of it Walter… no confidence intervals, no certainty regarding the beginning of life nor the certainty of a life lived or no.  The only thing certain is your argumentative nature…

[walterpthefirst]

This is ridiculous.

 

You say that certainty is an impossible standard to reach.

 

But then you demand that the government reach this impossible standard.

 

And because they can't... you're argument works.

 

No it doesn't.

 

No argument based upon an impossibility can work.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

This is ridiculous.

 

You say that certainty is an impossible standard to reach.

 

But then you demand that the government reach this impossible standard.

 

And because they can't... you're argument works.

 

No it doesn't.

 

No argument based upon an impossibility can work.

 

 

 

I didn’t say that at all.  Just sayin there are limits, unlike your ego.

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I didn’t say that at all.  Just sayin there are limits, unlike your ego.

 

Yes you did.  Here...

 

 

Just like science, it's presumptuous to assume an outcome given we just don't ultimately know.  So yeah, it's wrong for the government to impose.

 

 

That was you saying that certainty is an impossible standard for both science and the government.

 

Therefore your argument of holding the government to that impossible standard cannot work.

 

Because no argument based upon an impossibility can work.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Never mind, Ed.

 

The folks around here can see what you said, even if you deny it.

 

Good night.

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yes you did.  Here...

 

 

Just like science, it's presumptuous to assume an outcome given we just don't ultimately know.  So yeah, it's wrong for the government to impose.

 

 

That was you saying that certainty is an impossible standard for both science and the government.

 

Therefore your argument of holding the government to that impossible standard cannot work.

 

Because no argument based upon an impossibility can work.

 

 

You see the word ultimately?  Certainly presumes does it not?  Again, applied to abortion, you are willing to apply certainty?  Really sir?  

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Never mind, Ed.

 

The folks around here can see what you said, even if you deny it.

 

Good night.

I think they see you as well… good night.

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I think they see you as well… good night.

 

I believe Walter has shown you with geometric logic that a duplicate key to the icebox DID exist! But you laughed at Walter, you called him Old Yellow Stain, HE was to blame for all the problems on the ship. 

 

https://youtu.be/KekChFdIe00

 

 

[RankStranger]

Wapner's on at 4 

[Edgarcito]

 

[midniterider]

When someone makes a statement, can we assume that its concept must therefore be universally applied to any and every situation?

 

Or do some statements only apply to particular situations?

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

When someone makes a statement, can we assume that its concept must therefore be universally applied to any and every situation?

 

Or do some statements only apply to particular situations?

I've lost you M.  What specifically are you saying please sir.  Are you referring to Walter's assessment of my statement?

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I've lost you M.  What specifically are you saying please sir.  Are you referring to Walter's assessment of my statement?

 

Yes, the certainty vs uncertainty thing. Science is a big field. Seems like there could be certainties and uncertainties in different areas of science at the same time.

 

Is every remark on a web forum to be treated like it's our mission statement? 

 

 

[RankStranger]

18 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I believe Walter has shown you with geometric logic that a duplicate key to the icebox DID exist! But you laughed at Walter, you called him Old Yellow Stain, HE was to blame for all the problems on the ship. 

 

https://youtu.be/KekChFdIe00

 

 

 

I like this post