The Day the Music Died

StephenB: The point was that abortion was, on a few rare occasions, believed to be necessary–not because they were necessary. Yes, by expert medical opinion with detailed knowledge of the specific cases. Zachriel

Zachriel

So we agree that abortion was sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother from 1967-1990.

I am starting to grow fond of you because you are so darned creative. The point was that abortion was, on a few rare occasions, believed to be necessary--not because they were necessary. The conditions that prompted the abortion could have been treated without resorting to such a grisly alternative. As a reward for your creative responses, I think I will give you the last word. StephenB

StephenB: The .0004% pertains to the years 1967 to 1990. The citations that followed, which you studiously ignored, came later. So we agree that abortion was sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother from 1967-1990. StephenB: .0004% or (150 out of one-half million) is vanishingly small by anyone’s standard, except for those who cannot count or do not understand proportions. Your claim is "never". A single counterexample is all that is required to contradict your claim. We provided a specific example above, from 2012, and your own citation belies your claim. ETA: It's not that rare a situation. Fetuses die for a variety of reasons, and they are a danger to the mother as they decline. StephenB: I am on the record for supporting objective morality and values. Well, you're on the record for *claiming* the existence of an objective morality. However, there's no objective evidence of such. It's because we value humans that we seek to nurture them. Take away love, and there's nothing left but self-interest. Zachriel

Zachriel

You mean your subjective standard. A misanthrope doesn’t value people — at any stage of development.

On the contrary. I am on the record for supporting objective morality and values. You are on the record for supporting subjective morality and values. I don't presume to create my own morality. By definition, you do. Accordingly, I hold that all innocent humans deserve to life. You hold that only those innocent humans that seem valuable to you deserve to live. StephenB

Zachriel

One hundred fifty lives is not vanishingly small to the hundred and fifty families.

.0004% or (150 out of one-half million) is vanishingly small by anyone's standard, except for those who cannot count or do not understand proportions.

In any case, now we’re quibbling over numbers, not the existence, of such cases.

No, we aren't. You are reading selectively again. The .0004% pertains to the years 1967 to 1990. The citations that followed, which you studiously ignored, came later. You were supposed to read it all so you could understsand the trend. From 1967 to 1990, we thought that it was almost never necessary to kill a baby in order to save a mother's life. We now know that it is never necessary. And, of course, you missed the point of the .0004%. The baby killers say that abortion for the sake of saving a mother's life is a common occurrence. On the contrary, even in their own judgment, and even in an era of less advanced technology, it was considered to be almost never necessary.

It was your citation.

Of course, I thought you might like to know that even the baby killers know and admit that abortion is almost never necessary. In fact, it is never necessary at all. There is no medical condition for which abortion is the only option. StephenB

StephenB: Our objective standard of morality is that all humans at every stage of life have inherent worth by virtue of the fact that they are, in fact, human. Where they are in the process of development is irrelevant. You mean your subjective standard. A misanthrope doesn't value people — at any stage of development. Zachriel

harry:

Will you continue to deny “the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.?

Zachriel:

Well, it’s certainly a human zygote. The question is the relative moral value.

More precisely, the question is what standard do each of us use to determine moral value: Our objective standard of morality is that all humans at every stage of life have inherent worth by virtue of the fact that they are, in fact, human. Where they are in the process of development is irrelevant. We argue, therefore, that all humans at every stage of life have a natural right to live. Your subjective standard of morality is that humans have no inherent worth and are valuable only insofar as you care to confer value on them. Accordingly, babies have a right to live because you say so. Zygotes and fetuses have no right to live because you say so. StephenB

StephenB: We know that the .0004% of abortions from 1967 to 1990 were carried out to saved the life of the mother, a vanishingly small number. One hundred fifty lives is not vanishingly small to the hundred and fifty families. In any case, now we're quibbling over numbers, not the existence, of such cases. StephenB: That doesn’t mean, however, that it was necessary even in those few cases. It was your citation. Zachriel

Zachriel

Then we’re in agreement. At least some abortions can save the mother’s life, as in the tragic example provided above.

Not quite. We know that the .0004% of abortions from 1967 to 1990 were carried out to saved the life of the mother, a vanishingly small number. That doesn't mean, however, that it was necessary even in those few cases. It means that, contrary to what the pro-abortionists tell us, it was almost never considered necessary even among pro-abortion doctors. Otherwise, it would be a more frequent occurrence. As we now know, it is never necessary. There is no condition for which abortion is the only alternative. StephenB

harry: Will you continue to deny “the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.”? Well, it's certainly a human zygote. The question is the relative moral value. Did you ever answer? Which would you save first, the baby or the vat? Zachriel

Will you continue to deny "the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death."? Since you use "the very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life," I suspect you will continue to deny the facts. When you display some intellectual honesty I will answer your question. harry

harry: I am for medical practices that do not violate the {Declaration of Geneva} The Declaration of Geneva has been updated many times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva In any case, you didn't answer the question. Are you against in vitro fertilization as a form of child endangerment? Zachriel

Zachriel, I am for medical practices that do not violate the Geneva Code and that uphold "the traditional Western ethic" that "has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition," which "has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy." It is too bad you haven't been forced into intellectual honesty as was Dr. Watts. harry

harry: {Nazi, Nazi, Nazi} Are you against in vitro fertilization as a form of child endangerment? Zachriel

Zachriel @185,

The original oath also requires fealty to pagan gods. The prohibition is against pessaries, not herbal treatments. The Hippocratic Corpus actually suggests the Lacedaemonian leap to expel a healthy fetus, though the only other remedies provided are for removing dead or deformed fetuses.

The Corpus Hippocraticum, which was written by many authors, contains a treatise concerning the case of a dancer who, so the story goes, was pregnant for six days. The author of this particular Hippocratic treatise proposed that she expel the "seed" using the "Lacedaemonian leap," which is jumping such that the heels touch the buttocks. The author probably didn't consider the "seed" to be expelled a living human being. In any event, if the "First do no harm" medical ethic of Hippocrates wasn't commonly understood to prohibit taking the life of the child in the womb according to objective scholarly research, why did Justice Blackmun, in the Roe decision, feel compelled to discredit the Hippocratic Oath by claiming it was obsolete? Interestingly, the twenty Nazi physicians at the Nuremberg Doctors' trial, who prosecutors claimed had "violated the Hippocratic commandments which they had solemnly sworn to uphold and abide by," also claimed the Hippocratic Oath was obsolete. In response to the Nazi assault on the Hippocratic Oath, the Declaration of Geneva, also known as the Geneva Code was enacted in Geneva Switzerland in 1948 by the World Medical Association. Its updated version of the medical oath taken by physicians to "First do no harm" states in part:

Now being admitted to the profession of medicine, I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity ... I will practice medicine with conscience and dignity. The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration ... I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of its conception ... Even under threat I will not use my knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.

Before Roe and after California's highly controversial "legalization" of abortion (that which is clearly contrary to the "laws of humanity" referred to by the Geneva Code one can only pretend is legal), pro-abortion Dr. Malcolm Watts wrote an editorial that appeared in the September, 1970 edition of California Medicine. His audience was not that of the local mass media in California -- that audience consisted of many who could be easily propagandized. No, his audience was to consist of educated medical professionals who had taken some version of the "First, do no harm" medical oath and knew quite well the earth-shaking nature of the "legalization" of taking the life of the child in the womb. Dr. Watts was forced into intellectual honesty. Here are some excerpts from his editorial. An intellectually honest defense of the indefensible is quite interesting:

THE TRADITIONAL Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. This ethic has had the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage and has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy. The reverence for each and every human life has also been a keystone of Western medicine and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong and enhance every human life which comes under their surveillance. This traditional ethic is still clearly dominant, but there is much to suggest that it is being eroded at its core and may eventually even be abandoned. This of course will produce profound changes in Western medicine and in Western society. ... What is not yet so clearly perceived is that in order to bring this about hard choices will have to be made with respect to what is to be preserved and strengthened and what is not, and that this will of necessity violate and ultimately destroy the traditional Western ethic with all that this portends. It will become necessary and acceptable to place relative rather than absolute values on such things as human lives, the use of scarce resources and the various elements which are to make up the quality of life or of living which is to be sought. This is quite distinctly at variance with the Judeo-Christian ethic and carries serious philosophical, social, economic and political implications for Western society and perhaps for world society. The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws and public policy rather than the reverse. Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.

He goes on to assert that the "new ethic of relative rather than of absolute and equal values will ultimately prevail..." His "new ethic" isn't new at all. It had been tried by the Nazis and was condemned by the whole world because it violated the "laws of humanity." Note that his "shift in public attitude" that had "affected the churches, the laws and public policy" was brought about by propaganda that depended upon an "avoidance of the scientific fact" that "human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death." This media-manufactured bigotry towards the child in the womb was a classic case of the use of the "Big Lie," which in this case was to separate "the idea of abortion from the idea of killing." As I mentioned previously, Joseph Goebbels must have enjoyed watching all this from his eternal home in the depths of Hell. harry

StephenB: "Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother’s life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions. Then we're in agreement. At least some abortions can save the mother's life, as in the tragic example provided above. Zachriel

Zachriel

>>https://www.guttmacher.org/tables/370305/3711005t2.pdf

Even if 12% of women cite health concerns, and that number is much higher than most other studies, those concerns are misplaced. Dr. Alan Guttmacher, founder of the same institute that conducted the study, once said this: “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” That was a long time ago. Here is some more recent information to consider: Abortion to save the mother’s life: "Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions. (Dr Michael Jarmulowicz, cited in The Physical and Psycho-Social effects of Abortion on Women: A Report by the Commission of Inquiry into the Operation and Consequences of The Abortion Act, June 1994 p. 5) In 1992, a group of Ireland's top gynaecologists wrote: "We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child." (John Bonner, Eamon O'Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O'Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, 'Statement by Obstetricians', The Irish Times 1 April 1992) When Dublin's National Maternity Hospital (where 10% of all births in Ireland occurred) investigated the 21 deaths of pregnant women there between 1970-1979, they found that not a single one of those deaths could have been avoided by abortion. (Irish Medical Journal 1982 vol. 75, pp. 304-306) Ireland, a country where the unborn child is constitutionally protected, has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. The UK, where abortion is available practically on demand, has over five times Ireland's maternal death rate. (World Health Organisation: maternal deaths, three-year average) Developments in medicine mean that the 'abortion to save the mother's life' argument is becoming harder and harder to justify. It is now possible for women with heart defects to carry a baby to term with expert help and life-threatening conditions such as cancer can often be treated without harming the unborn child. Women facing difficult pregnancies have a right to the best available medical support. Direct abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn child. Treatment to save the life of the mother that results in the death of the child as an expected but not intended side effect is not a direct abortion, e.g. in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In this situation, the baby begins to develop in the woman's fallopian tube and has to be removed or the tube will rupture and cause the death of the woman. This involves the unavoidable death of the unborn baby but the aim of the operation is to save the mother not to kill the baby." StephenB

StephenB: That study does not confirm your claim that 12% of women have abortions out of concern for their health. https://www.guttmacher.org/tables/370305/3711005t2.pdf StephenB: This is another treatable condition. The report found that abortion law was a key factor in the death of the mother. StephenB: How long after conception must a baby live for you to defend its right to live? Nearly everyone admits to shades of gray. People look on fertility clinics, that routinely endanger blastocysts, as a positive good. And most people would be horrified to think that you saved the vat before the baby. The current standard is birth, with some social responsibility in the latter part of pregnancy, especially if the fetus is viable. There's no perfect answer because the world is not black and white. Zachriel

Zachriel

We provided expert opinion and a specific example. About 12% of women have an abortion because of concerns about their health. See Finer et al., Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005.

It reads, "The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason." That study does not confirm your claim that 12% of women have abortions out of concern for their health. Even if that was the case, it would not show that abortion is ever a life saving procedure. When are you going to answer my question: How long after conception must a baby live for you to defend its right to live? StephenB

harry: This is why the “First, do no harm” physician’s ethic of Hippocrates explicitly prohibits abortion. The original oath also requires fealty to pagan gods. The prohibition is against pessaries, not herbal treatments. The Hippocratic Corpus actually suggests the Lacedaemonian leap to expel a healthy fetus, though the only other remedies provided are for removing dead or deformed fetuses. Are you against in vitro fertilization as a form of child endangerment? Zachriel

StephenB: I asked for evidence that abortions are ever necessary to save the lives of mothers. Handwaving. We provided expert opinion and a specific example. About 12% of women have an abortion because of concerns about their health. See Finer et al., Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005. StephenB: This is another treatable condition. Handwaving. The report found that abortion law was a key factor in the death of the mother. Zachriel

Zachriel, People have always referred to a pregnant female as being "with child." This is why the "First, do no harm" physician's ethic of Hippocrates explicitly prohibits abortion. This ancient medical ethic has been abandoned by the medical profession only twice in modern history, during the twelve years of the Third Reich by the Nazi medical profession, and again in contemporary society. In the early twenties the German intelligentsia began proposing the legalization of abortion and euthanasia, a bold social experiment in deifying the state, allowing state-sanctioned killing of innocent humanity as a matter of social policy. This would give the state god-like authority over innocent human life. The Nazi regime established everything they wanted. And how did their grand social experiment work out? No social experiment in the history of the world has demonstrated more clearly that power corrupts and absolute, god-like authority in the hands of mere mortals corrupts absolutely and in the most diabolical way. A few decades later the U.S. Supreme Court inexcusably reestablished that social experiment in state-sanctioned killing, putting god-like authority over innocent human life in the hands of women who were "with child." Roe struck down laws in the vast majority of the states that protected the life of the child in the womb. Those laws had been put there by the elected representatives of the people through the American democratic process, by people who knew what humanity has always known: a pregnant woman is "with child." Roe struck down democracy. Roe struck down the very idea of the Founders: Humanity precedes the state and brings it into existence to protect its inalienable rights. The state exists for humanity, not humanity for the state. It is humanity that bestows and withdraws the state's right to exist, not the reverse. Roe overthrew the government established by the Founders. As modern history demonstrates, regimes hostile to theism always end up murdering innocent human beings by the millions. The mass murder of such regimes makes the combined sins of Christianity over the centuries look like swiping a cookie from the cookie jar. The photographs of containers filled with dead babies murdered by "physicians" look terribly similar to those photographs of piles of corpses taken by the American troops who liberated the Nazi concentration camps. Would simply referring to those corpses as "adult tissue" have made what the Nazis had done acceptable? No. Nor does referring to containers filled with dead babies as "fetal tissue" excuse murder. Another terrible similarity is that the Nazis would harvest the bodies of their victims for profit, as do today's Nazis. People trapped in your mindset are dangerous enemies of the human race. harry

Zachriel

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: “Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives.” http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG.....n-Comments

LOL. I didn't ask for unsubstantiated claims. I asked for evidence that abortions are ever necessary to save the lives of mothers. In fact, abortion is never the only alternative. It does more harm than good to the mother (not to mention what it does to the baby).

Irish abortion law key factor in death of Savita Halappanavar, official report finds: While trying to explain to Mrs Halappanavar, a Hindu of Indian origin, why she could not have her pregnancy terminated Ann Maria Burke, the hospital’s midwife manager told her it was “because Ireland is a Catholic country”. Despite evidence of septicaemia and her worsening condition, doctors refused to consider terminating the pregnancy for another 48 hours until after the foetal heartbeat stopped and there was a spontaneous miscarriage, a delay that led to a life-threatening deterioration in Mrs Halappanavar’s health. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....finds.html

This is another treatable condition. Abortion is not necessary. Indeed, abortion is likely to complicate the problem. Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother and only puts her life in further jeopardy. StephenB

Gee whiz, StephenB. Not only did we read what you posted, but we found the original source in order to determine what was represented by your ellipses. It clearly showed that it was a special definition.

Of course, you are not telling the truth. You did not read the article. You cannot comment on it because you know nothing of its contents. (*I think you mean to ask, why didn’t I use ellipses? The answer is that the later quotes were not those of the author and parts of it could be misunderstood as being so. However, if you have a problem with that, then re-create the article any way you like so that we can discuss it.) In any case, the definition that is presented is not, as you falsely claim in your ignorance, a “new” definition. It is a response to the baby-killers' broad definition often used in medical literature. The true definition is consistent in legal literature, ethical literature, and the dictionary itself. Legal Definition: the intentional and artificial termination of a pregnancy that destroys an embryo or fetus. The spontaneous expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it is capable of living outside the womb. AND Dictionary Definition: : the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. AND Ethical Definition:. the intentional killing of the human fetus, or the performance of a procedure intentionally designed to kill the human fetus. Meanwhile, I ask for the eleventh time: How long after conception must a baby live before you will defend its right to live? StephenB

StephenB: Abortion is never necessary to prevent grievous harm or death to the mother. I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: "Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives." http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/News-Releases/2012/Response-to-Politicians-Inaccurate-Abortion-Comments

Irish abortion law key factor in death of Savita Halappanavar, official report finds: While trying to explain to Mrs Halappanavar, a Hindu of Indian origin, why she could not have her pregnancy terminated Ann Maria Burke, the hospital’s midwife manager told her it was “because Ireland is a Catholic country”. Despite evidence of septicaemia and her worsening condition, doctors refused to consider terminating the pregnancy for another 48 hours until after the foetal heartbeat stopped and there was a spontaneous miscarriage, a delay that led to a life-threatening deterioration in Mrs Halappanavar’s health. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/10119109/Irish-abortion-law-key-factor-in-death-of-Savita-Halappanavar-official-report-finds.html

StephenB: I don’t believe that you read it. Gee whiz, StephenB. Not only did we read what you posted, but we found the original source in order to determine what was represented by your ellipses. It clearly showed that it was a special definition. Why did you use ellipses? Was it because it contradicted your claim? Or was it because you used a quote mine? Yes, abortion leads to the death of the fetus. That's usually because the fetus isn't viable, but sometimes the life of the fetus is directly ended. Where the essay fails is by pretending that an abortion done to save the life of the mother isn't really an abortion as long as you aren't trying to kill the fetus, but the fetus dies as a secondary consequence of the procedure. That is simply false. It's still an abortion. By the way, the term abortion includes miscarriages, also called spontaneous abortions. - edited for clarity Zachriel

Zachriel

Abortion is sometimes necessary to prevent grievous harm or death of the mother.

Abortion is never necessary to prevent grievous harm or death to the mother. I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.

Not only did we read what you posted, but we found the original source in order to determine what was represented by your ellipses.

I don't believe that you read it. Summarize the main points. Tell me which parts you agree with, which parts you don't agree with, and why. StephenB

So murder is OK if it is convenient. Murder is OK if the dead was defective. Murder is a procedure. Murder is sometimes necessary. Abortion is murder and no amount of special pleading of subjective definitions matter. Virgil Cain

StephenB: So, you refuse to do your homework, even after I went to the trouble of digging up the information and presenting it to you on a silver platter. Gee whiz. Not only did we read what you posted, but we found the original source in order to determine what was represented by your ellipses. It clearly showed that it was a special definition. StephenB: “The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.” That's right, though incomplete. As pointed out, abortion does entail the death of the fetus, usually, but not always, because it can't survive outside the womb. An abortion might be done for convenience. It might be done due to defects in the fetus. It might be done to protect the life and health of the mother. It's still an abortion. StephenB: Yes, an abortion could be suggested as a means (immoral) to that end, but it would not be an end in itself. That's right. An abortion is a procedure. There may be many motivations for having an abortion. It's still an abortion. StephenB: It would be one thing, for example, to say, “I am going to do all I can to save the mother, and I hope the baby will survive this procedure, though it seems unlikely” If there is hope the fetus will survive, and actions are taken to preserve the fetus, then it is called giving birth, not an abortion. An example is induced labor late in a pregnancy. StephenB: Abortion is never necessary. Abortion is sometimes necessary to prevent grievous harm or death of the mother. Of course, if you redefine the term, then your position is a tautology, which hardly constitutes an argument. StephenB: Murder is different than self defense. They're both homicide. An abortion is feticide. The ethical question you raise is whether it is murder. By the way, are you satisfied with your answer that you would save the vat of embryos before the baby? Zachriel

velikovskysJ

Only if the purposes were mutually exclusive, I would guess.

It’s all about apriori intent. What prompted the medical procedure in the first place? That could only be one thing. Presumably, the mother’s health is in jeopardy and the purpose is to protect her from injury. Yes, an abortion could be suggested as a means (immoral) to that end, but it would not be an end in itself. It would be a means to an end.

The purpose of riding a bike is both transportation and exercise, cannot it not be both at the same time?

Yes, of course. However, that is not the same thing as a carpenter using a hammer for the sake of building a house, or an abortionist using murder for the sake of preserving a mother’s health. The transportation is not for the sake of the exercise, and vice versa.

Just curious, what would you call the medical procedure that requires the termination of fetus to save the mother’s life?

An abortion is defined by its directness. It would be one thing, for example, to say, “I am going to do all I can to save the mother, and I hope the baby will survive this procedure, though it seems unlikely” That is indirect and moral. It is quite another thing to say, “I have decided, in advance, that the baby must die so that the mother may live.” That is direct and immoral. It would be no different than an end of life decision. It is one thing to say, “This person is suffering terribly, and with his permission I will continue to give him increasing amounts of morphine as needed. Whatever it takes to relieve his suffering!! If he happens to die from an overdose, which would be the minimum amount of medicine to help him, that would be indirect and moral. It is another thing to say, “This person is suffering terribly, so I am going to kill him right now.” That would be direct and immoral.

So it is not an abortion if it is for the sake economic considerations? Rape?

I would call it an abortion if it is a direct killing, as opposed to indirect or incidental killing. So, yes, if it is a response to rape or greed, it would still be an abortion. That’s not to say that both responses are equally blameworthy SB: It is precisely because of the different moral implications that we have two terms to make the distinction

We don’t,you do. A gun is a gun whether I use it the save a life or the kill an innocent person.

That is a good example of why distinctions are important. It is impossible to have a rational discussion about the ethics of abortion (or firearm use) in the absence of carefully defined terms. Abortion is different than medicine. Murder is different than self defense. People make distinction to clarify the issues. People refuse to make distinctions in order to muddle the issues. That is why simple minded people think, without qualification, that all use of firearms (whatever the purpose) is bad. Simple minded people think about abortion the same way. Note that no one has bothered to read and study the comments on "The Ethics of Abortion." SB:An abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent life in order to get rid of the baby.

Getting rid of the baby is the life saving procedure,

You might be interested to know that there is no medical situation for which abortion is the only solution.

The purpose of the medical procedure remains the same, why the medical procedure happens is where the intent , morality lies.

Yes, everything turns on the why. That is where the morality lies. StephenB

SB: Please do the requisite reading so you will be prepared to discuss this topic in a sensible way. Zachriel

Please avoid redefining words as a substitute for sensible discussion.

So, you refuse to do your homework, even after I went to the trouble of digging up the information and presenting it to you on a silver platter. Duly noted. In any case, I didn't redefine the word, you did. All you have to do is consult a dictionary. Indeed, I provided the dictionary definition for you. Here is it again: "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy." It is the dictionary that provides the common meaning of words, not your perception of who is saying what. Recall, that we are discussing the ethics of abortion. You cannot possibly understand why your definition is irrational and the dictionary definition is rational until you do the requisite reading. I can't do it for you. StephenB

StephenB: Obviously, you did not read the article. One should always watch out for the ellipses in polemics.

…abortion is the intentional killing of the human fetus, or the performance of a procedure intentionally designed to kill the human fetus.

As abolitionists, this is what we mean when we use the term abortion: abortion is the intentional killing of the human fetus, or the performance of a procedure intentionally designed to kill the human fetus.

In other words, he is proposing a special definition contrary to standard usage. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy leading to the death of a fetus. StephenB: Please do the requisite reading so you will be prepared to discuss this topic in a sensible way. Please avoid redefining words as a substitute for sensible discussion. StephenB: Based on the information you gave me, the doctor recommended the direct killing of the baby, which is, indeed, an abortion. To prevent grievous harm or death of the mother, they recommend an abortion. To echo velikovskys' question, what would you call the medical procedure that requires the termination of a fetus leading to the fetus's death to save the mother’s life? Zachriel

Planned Parenthood claims they're not profiting from this sick business, then this second sting video surfaces today. Planned Parenthood Abortion Doctor Haggles over Payments for “Intact Fetal Specimens” in New Video - July 21, 2015 https://stream.org/planned-parenthood-abortion-doctor-haggles-payments-intact-fetal-specimens-new-video/ bornagain77

That’s very nice, but contrary to how people actually use the term. We provided medical, legal, and common usage above.

Obviously, you did not read the article. We are discussing the ethics of abortion, not the physical nature of the procedure. Please do the requisite reading so you will be prepared to discuss this topic in a sensible way. You cannot raise rational objections about something you know nothing about.

A woman has severe diabetes. The chance of carrying to term are very small, and the likelihood of serious injury or death for the mother are very high. The doctors suggest she consider an abortion.

This condition can be treated during pregnancy. However, it is irrelevant to the definition of abortion. Based on the information you gave me, the doctor recommended the direct killing of the baby, which is, indeed, an abortion. There is no medical condition for which an abortion is the only solution.

The woman wanted the baby, but the fetus developed severe hydrocephalus. The fetus had little chance of survival, and if it did survive, would have lived a short painful life. The woman chose an abortion.

This condition is also treatable. In any case, you are making my point. An abortion is the purposeful direct killing an innocent human being. If the killing is indirect, or incidental to a medical procedure, then it is not an abortion. StephenB

Virgil: I don’t water ski. Whoopsie. Neither could the guy who ran over you with his skis. velikovskys

Stephen: If the purpose is to save the mother, then it cannot, at the same time, also be to terminate the fetus. Only if the purposes were mutually exclusive, I would guess. The purpose of a hammer generally is to drive nails, if the reason I am driving nails is to build a house, is the purpose of the hammer no longer to drive nails? The purpose of riding a bike is both transportation and exercise, cannot it not be both at the same time? The purpose of an abortion is to end the life of the fetus. I agree, no matter why it is done. It is a tool. Just curious, what would you call the medical procedure that requires the termination of fetus to save the mother's life? The purpose of a medical intervention is to save a life or preserve health for the sake of preserving life or health. The purpose of an abortion is to kill a baby for the sake of killing the baby, So it is not an abortion if it is for the sake economic considerations? Rape? not for the sake of preserving health. If the objective is to preserve health, then it is not an abortion. If the objective is to kill the baby, then it is an abortion. The proximate objective of the procedure is to terminate the fetus in either case. It is precisely because of the different moral implications that we have two terms to make the distinction We don't,you do. A gun is a gun whether I use it the save a life or the kill an innocent person. An abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent life in order to get rid of the baby. Getting rid of the baby is the life saving procedure, The purpose of the medical procedure is to save a mother–not to get rid of the baby. The purpose of the medical procedure remains the same, why the medical procedure happens is where the intent , morality lies. velikovskys

velikovskys:

Do you feel like you are a murderer working in a place that results in the killing of so many unborn children?

You are misinformed. What murders do you think take place?

What about the arm and leg you broke in the water skiing accident the week before?

I don't water ski. Whoopsie. Virgil Cain

Virgil Cain: I can easily save the baby and the embryos all by myself. velikovskys: What about the arm and leg Super bat-healing. Having gently wrapped the sleeping baby in his black, flame-proof cape, he launches a bat-hook, which bounces off the walls, around the corner, and down the corridor, attaching to the vat of snow babies. Then, as the flames engulf the fertility clinic, he crashes through the third story window to the outside, making a perfect three-point landing. The retracting bat-hook pulls the vat down the hall and out the window, where the vat's fall is broken with a well-placed bat-spring. He places the baby, unaware of how close it came to a fiery death, in a bat-cradle, while using a portable bat-battery to provide power to the vat. The baby smiles and coos as it wakes to see his savior. The caped hero disappears into the night. Zachriel

Virgil: I work there and taking care of that baby was part of my daily duties, as is monitoring the embryos. That sounds reasonable. Do you feel like you are a murderer working in a place that results in the killing of so many unborn children? I can easily save the baby and the embryos all by myself. What about the arm and leg you broke in the water skiing accident the week before? velikovskys

A woman has severe diabetes.

And she didn't know that before having sex? Really? Virgil Cain

StephenB: Christopher Kaczor The Ethics of Abortion That's very nice, but contrary to how people actually use the term. We provided medical, legal, and common usage above. A woman has severe diabetes. The chance of carrying to term are very small, and the likelihood of serious injury or death for the mother are very high. The doctors suggest she consider an abortion. The woman wanted the baby, but the fetus developed severe hydrocephalus. The fetus had little chance of survival, and if it did survive, would have lived a short painful life. The woman chose an abortion. Zachriel

StephenB

harry: Enough of Zachriel’s endless gainsaying and sophistry. We shouldn’t let one who won’t even admit there is such a thing as behavior that is objectively wrong entertain himself this way. SB to Zachriel: I appreciate your silly responses since they continually provide me with teaching moments.

You were right. You have done a splendid job of taking advantage of the many "teaching moments" Zachriel's silly remarks have provided you. Very well done. harry

I chose to "save" the frozen embryos. But it was a very hot day that day, and they all ended up perishing. Mung

Christopher Kaczor The Ethics of Abortion: "Although this definition of abortion ["termination of pregnancy"] is used sometimes in the medical community, it is certainly too broad. If abortion is simply “the separation” of the fetus from the mother,” then every cesarean section is also an abortion. If the human fetus does not die, then an abortion properly speaking has not taken place but rather a botched abortion, an attempted abortion, or a failed abortion. The common usage of the verb “abort” indicates as much. If the captain aborted the mission, the mission is over. If the captain tried to abort the mission or failed to abort the mission, that mission may continue. Properly speaking,abortion is intentionally killing the human fetus." and from a review of "The Ethics of Abortion: "Abortion is commonly defined as the “termination of a pregnancy” (or a “termination of a pregnancy prior to viability”). This may suffice in certain limited contexts in which only the medical aspects of pregnancy are under discussion. However, in the normal usage of the term, when the moral aspect of abortion is under discussion, this definition is inadequate. The simple reason is that the moral aspect of abortion is not whether or not the pregnancy is terminated prematurely. Rather, the question is whether or not the life of the unborn child was intentionally taken by the pregnancy-terminating procedure in question." and again, "This difference in definition becomes particularly relevant when discussing situations where the life of the mother is in danger. ...there are morally justifiable ways of ending life-threatening pregnancies without resorting to performing an abortion. If a mother has an emergency C-section to save her life, this is not an abortion (in the moral sense), even if the baby dies. On the other hand, consider a hypothetical scenario in which the mother in a life-threatening condition elects to have an emergency C-section just before the normal time of viability, and the child happens to live. Did the doctors just perform (and botch) an abortion? Or did they perform a life-saving medical procedure that resulted in the saving of two lives? No one using the term in the normal sense would say that the doctors performed an abortion in this case. Hence, the need to specify a different definition of the term when discussing abortion in normal contexts. Now consider another hypothetical scenario where a woman undergoes Dilation & Extraction (also known as “partial birth abortion”) a week before she is due for delivery. At this point, the unborn child is viable. Yet, using the definition of abortion as the “termination of a pregnancy prior to viability,” such a procedure is not an “abortion,” since the unborn child was viable when the procedure was performed. Yet, no one using the term in the normal sense would say that the woman did not have an abortion. Hence, once again, the need to specify a different definition of the term when discussing the morality of abortion. ...abortion is the intentional killing of the human fetus, or the performance of a procedure intentionally designed to kill the human fetus. Defining abortion as the “termination of a pregnancy,” when discussing abortion in a moral context, defies common usage of the term, as well as common sense. What this means is that the usual life-of-the-mother scenarios cannot rationally be used to justify the continued legality of abortion, since there are morally justifiable lifesaving procedures that can be performed to save the life of the mother that are not abortions by this normal and common-sense definition." StephenB

velikovskys

The purpose of the procedure is to terminate the fetus, the reason why it is preformed is to save the life of the mother.

If the purpose is to save the mother, then it cannot, at the same time, also be to terminate the fetus. It was the life of the mother, not the death of the fetus that prompted the action. An abortion is different. The purpose of an abortion is to end the life of the fetus.

The purpose of the medical procedure is the same,to terminate the pregnancy,for whatever the reason for it being preformed.

The purpose of a medical intervention is to save a life or preserve health for the sake of preserving life or health. The purpose of an abortion is to kill a baby for the sake of killing the baby, not for the sake of preserving health. If the objective is to preserve health, then it is not an abortion. If the objective is to kill the baby, then it is an abortion. Abortion: "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy."

Your definition does not specify that if you have a good reason a deliberate termination of pregnancy is not a deliberate termination of pregnancy. It is true that the moral implications of having an abortion are different.

It is precisely because of the different moral implications that we have two terms to make the distinction. An abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent life in order to get rid of the baby. The purpose of the medical procedure is to save a mother--not to get rid of the baby. The issue is apriori intent. Why are we doing this? SB: Do you understand the difference between purposeful and deliberate killing as opposed to incidental killing or “collateral damage?” The former defines abortion; the latter does not.

In the case of the mother’s life exemption the termination is not incidental, it is required.

The killing of the baby is incidental precisely because it is required. It is incidental because it has become suddenly required against the wishes of the doctor and mother--not because it was intended all along. If the killing of a baby is incidental, it wasn't originally intended, which means that it is not an abortion. The original purpose, which was to save both the woman and the baby, is now compromised because new and immediate medical facts require the doctor to do something he had not intended to do. With an abortion, the intention was to kill the baby all along. StephenB

velikovskys:

Why were you carrying someone else’s baby around? You often pickup up babies just in case of fire breaks out?

I work there and taking care of that baby was part of my daily duties, as is monitoring the embryos. I can easily save the baby and the embryos all by myself. Virgil Cain

Stephen: The purpose of a medical procedure is to save a life or health of the mother. It is not to end the life of the baby. The purpose of an abortion is to end the life of the baby. The purpose of the procedure is to terminate the fetus, the reason why it is preformed is to save the life of the mother. The purpose of the medical procedure is the same,to terminate the pregnancy,for whatever the reason for it being preformed. The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. Your definition does not specify that if you have a good reason a deliberate termination of pregnancy is not a deliberate termination of pregnancy. It is true that the moral implications of having an abortion are different. Do you understand the difference between purposeful and deliberate killing as opposed to incidental killing or “collateral damage?” The former defines abortion; the latter does not. In the case of the mother's life exemption the termination is not incidental, it is required, without deliberate termination of the pregnancy the mother dies. velikovskys

StephenB: The purpose of a medical procedure is to save a life or health of the mother. "An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/abortion.html Laws often provide exceptions on prohibitions to abortion to provide for the life and health of the mother; for example, Kentucky law, which states "Abortion after viability unlawful except to preserve life or health of woman". It's also how the term is used in normal discourse; for example, this survey result, "11% would prohibit all abortions, 14% would allow abortion only to save the life of the mother and 28% would allow abortion only in cases of life of mother, rape or incest." StephenB: Abortion is never necessary. It's amazing what you can conclude by changing the definitions of words. StephenB: you don’t attach the same value to a baby as a fully developed human for the same reason. Not sure how you reached that erroneous conclusion. Zachriel

Zachriel

While abortion is a loss of a potential human baby, we don’t attached the same value to a blastocyst as to a baby.

We already know that you don't attach the same value to a blastocyst as a baby because it is not fully developed. We can also surmise, though you are too timid to admit it, that you don't attach the same value to a baby as a fully developed human for the same reason. That is why I asked you how long after conception a baby must live before you will defend its right to live. You were afraid to answer. The reason is evident: You support the killing of anyone who doesn't meet your subjective standards for who deserves to live. And, of course, you assumptions are all wrong. A blastocyst is not a "potential" human being; a blastocyst is a real human being. Human life begins at conception, a biological fact that you find most inconvenient. You use the word "potential" to justify the killing of an innocent human being. StephenB

StephenB: A medical procedure to save the life or health of the mother is not an abortion since the purpose is to save the mother. Zachriel

Now you’re just making up definitions to suit. Of course it’s an abortion.

I appreciate your silly responses since they continually provide me with teaching moments. The purpose of a medical procedure is to save a life or health of the mother. It is not to end the life of the baby. The purpose of an abortion is to end the life of the baby. From the dictionary: Abortion-- The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. Do you understand the difference between purposeful and deliberate killing as opposed to incidental killing or "collateral damage?" The former defines abortion; the latter does not.

Abortion is sometimes necessary.

Abortion is never necessary. Nevertheless, you support abortion even though you know that it is the purposeful murder of an innocent human life. StephenB

Virgil Cain: It wouldn’t matter as when this fire broke out I was in the room with the embryos and had the baby with me. Why were you carrying someone else's baby around? You often pickup up babies just in case of fire breaks out? I merely opened the door and called all the people running by to assist me in the rescue. The people ignore you since heavy smoke has filled the hallway and the fire claxons are too loud to hear you, it is getting hotter, the sprinkler system has malfunctioned, the halls are now empty, do you give up or try to save one? velikovskys

StephenB: A medical procedure to save the life or health of the mother is not an abortion since the purpose is to save the mother. Now you're just making up definitions to suit. Of course it's an abortion. Zachriel

StephenB: I know the baby is likely to live for decades, so I save it first. So you'll save the baby first. StephenB: If I had the same assurance that the embryos would be born and live for decades, I would save them first. You have been provided that assurance many times. We know this because blastocysts are created for the very purpose of making babies. So you'll save the vat first. Not so straight then. StephenB: It is clear that you support abortion, and yet you claim to be fond of all humans. While abortion is a loss of a potential human baby, we don't attached the same value to a blastocyst as to a baby. Abortion is sometimes necessary, or the least bad choice. Zachriel

franklin

no one can assure you that the infant you just saved

I am assured by the odds. The baby will probably live for decades.

but you made your choice regardless of the numbers of lives you might have saved…

Quite the contrary, I wrote,

If I did have that assurance, that is, if I knew they (the embryos) would be implanted, survive the developmental process, and be born, I would save them first since saving a thousand lives is better than saving one.

I can add to that. If, as it turns out, 50% of frozen embryos are normally implanted within a year and 50% of those implanted result in delivery, then I save the embryos first. Clearer than that I cannot be. Meanwhile, tell me this: Why do you support abortion? Assume that we are not talking about rape or incest. (A medical procedure to save the life or health of the mother is not an abortion since the purpose is to save the mother. Under those circumstances, the death of the baby is incidental and was not intended. An abortion is the purposeful taking of a human life. It's purpose is to end life, not to save life). StephenB

velikovskys:

Which one do you leave for an unknown probably person to save?

It wouldn't matter as when this fire broke out I was in the room with the embryos and had the baby with me. I merely opened the door and called all the people running by to assist me in the rescue. Virgil Cain

Zachriel <blockquoteSorry. We thought you gave a straight answer, I did give a straight answer. I know the baby is likely to live for decades, so I save it first. If I had the same assurance that the embryos would be born and live for decades, I would save them first. Clearer than that I cannot be. Look who will not give a straight answer SB: So, does this mean that you are against abortion since you are fond of all babies in the womb? Zachriel

Abortion is rarely the best option.

That is an evasion. It is clear that you support abortion, and yet you claim to be fond of all humans. Why do you support abortion if you are fond of all humans? Look at who will not even answer a question SB: How long after conception must a baby live before you will support its right to live? (Asked at least 5 times). Zachriel

-----No response-----

I have already answered your question. It is time that you answered my questions. StephenB

Virgil Cain: velikovskys- If you read what I posted they both can be saved at the same time. This? " You save one and have someone else save the other. The probability that you are the only person left is too small to even consider." Which one do you leave for an unknown probably person to save? velikovskys

StephenB: … no one can assure me that the embryos will be implanted, survive the developmental process …

So? no one can assure you that the infant you just saved (over thousands of viable human blastocysts) does not suffer from a terminal illness which will kill it before puberty.....but you made your choice regardless of the numbers of lives you might have saved... franklin

StephenB: ... no one can assure me that the embryos will be implanted, survive the developmental process ... We responded to that concern. At least scores of the blastocysts will live a long and productive life. That's why they are frozen in a vat. StephenB: I didn’t save the vat first, I saved the baby first because no one can assure me that the embryos will be implanted, survive the developmental process, and be born. Sorry. We thought you gave a straight answer, rather than continue to squirm. You see gray, but can't acknowledge its existence. Notice how jcfrk101 directly answered a slightly reframed question. StephenB: So, does this mean that you are against abortion since you are fond of all babies in the womb? Abortion is rarely the best option. harry: If they are Christians, they probably also want to ask themselves if they are remaining open to God’s plan for populating Heaven with their descendants. Nice in theory, but not in practice. The vast majority of women use birth control at some time in their lives. Zachriel

Zachriel

Actually, we look fondly upon the promise of expectant human babies.

I think you mean the "expected" human babies. It is the mother who is expectant. So, does this mean that you are against abortion since you are fond of all babies in the womb? StephenB

StephenB barely makes it out of the fire with the vat. He tries to explain to the gathering people why he chose to save the vat of blastocysts first, leaving the baby.

I didn't save the vat first, I saved the baby first because no one can assure me that the embryos will be implanted, survive the developmental process, and be born. Meanwhile, my perennial question persists: How long after conception must a baby live before you will support its right to live? StephenB

I look fondly on ad hominems. Mung

Of much more importance than considering Zachriel's far-fetched scenario, one that we will never find ourselves in, is how to end the ongoing holocaust of innocent human life. What would be helpful in that regard is considering a scenario many couples, whether they know it or not, are actually facing: They have the opportunity to save newly conceived human lives by not using versions of "the pill" that are sometimes abortifacient, preventing the newly conceived child from implanting in the womb. I am not sure there is a safe version of the pill; I am assuming here that those who respect human life from its conception, if they are using artificial contraception, would want to find out if whatever means they are using sometimes acts as an abortifacient, and would want to know that "the pill" can be an abortifacient. If they are Christians, they probably also want to ask themselves if they are remaining open to God's plan for populating Heaven with their descendants. The reason such considerations would be helpful in ending the ongoing holocaust of innocent human life is that widespread use of artificial contraception was the beginning of what has ended in society's complete rejection of God's plan for human sexuality; sex has become, for the most part, a matter of recreation, not procreation. This mentality led to "legal" child-killing (a "baby" wasn't supposed to be the result of our recreation, so it becomes a "mistake" to be erased), and same-sex marriage (if heterosexual couples can enjoy sexual activity artificially disconnected from procreation, why shouldn't barren homosexual unions be called a "marriage," too?). The rejection of artificial contraception is the beginning of loosening the garrote the rejection of God's plan for human sexuality has become for humanity. Enough of Zachriel's endless gainsaying and sophistry. We shouldn't let one who won't even admit there is such a thing as behavior that is objectively wrong entertain himself this way. Would Zachriel explicitly admit that Nazi genocide was objectively wrong? If so, then I can only hope he would explain the principles upon which he bases that conviction. We could then have a real discussion with him about how those principles might apply in other areas. If not, then ... well ... I suspected as much. harry

StephenB: To defend your position the last time, you wrote the opposite. To quote Silver Asiatic, "The fact that all humans die does not take away from the marvels of engineering we can observe in them." In any case, you made your position clear. You would save the vat of blastocysts first. Presumably, you are against in vitro fertilization as it puts blastocysts at extraordinary risk. StephenB: If you are fond of all varieties of hominins, why do you not defend the fetuses’ right to live? Actually, we look fondly upon the promise of expectant human babies. Zachriel

Zachriel

We’re rather fond of the hominins, of all varieties.

If you are fond of all varieties of hominins, then why do you support abortion? StephenB

StephenB, There is still a way to save all- the baby and the embryos. Grab the baby, put it into your shirt and go get the embryos and incubator. Our opponents are too dim to think of such a plan. And they are not athletic enough to pull it off. I know that I am. :cool: Virgil Cain

jcfrk101: So do you think that the fact that most people will chose their child over another persons child justifies murdering the other child? Most people value children highly, so not sure why you think one would justify the other. Assigning a higher value to your own child doesn't mean you assign a negative value to other children. jcfrk101: Does my choice to save what is more valuable to me have any effect on the intrinsic worth of the other child? Saving your own child doesn't devalue the other child, but it does show that you value your own child higher. Zachriel: virtually no one would try to save their own frozen blastocyst before saving a living baby. jcfrk101: Yes I would. Most people would consider that monstrous. Zachriel

StephenB: I would save it first because I know that it will likely live decades after I save it. I don’t have that same assurance with the embryos. As already mentioned, out of a thousand blastocysts, scores likely will live full and productive lives. StephenB: If I did have that assurance, that is, if I knew they would be implanted, survive the developmental process, and be born, I would save them first since saving a thousand lives is better than saving one. Thank you for the direct answer. Zachriel: Actually, the Nazis claimed objective reasons for hating the Jews. You might want to review your history. StephenB: We are discussing your subjective values, according to which those whom you don’t like may be justifiably killed and those whom you do like may be justifiably spared. You were the one who brought up the Nazis. In any case, if someone has no affection for humans, then they would probably not work for their benefit without some benefit in exchange. If someone hates humans, then presumably they will work against them. StephenB: If those are not your values, this would be a good time to correct the record. We're rather fond of the hominins, of all varieties. StephenB: Earlier, you wrote, “We’re just pointing out that the vast majority of people assign a lower moral value to a blastocyst than a fully developed baby.” That's right. They do. You will notice that people don't adopt blastocysts, but do donate them. StephenB: Obviously, you support the killing of the zygote and the fetus. We haven't taken that position. StephenB: Hopefully, I have made it clear that this is not true. StephenB barely makes it out of the fire with the vat. He tries to explain to the gathering people why he chose to save the vat of blastocysts first, leaving the baby. Zachriel

Zachriel So do you think that the fact that most people will chose their child over another persons child justifies murdering the other child? Does my choice to save what is more valuable to me have any effect on the intrinsic worth of the other child? The problem with your scenario is that it cannot prove that intrinsic worth of an embryo is less than a born child, only that it is not greater than that of a born child. Given two being of identical intrinsic worth, most humans will default to relative worth given that intrinsic worth is identical. "no one would try to save their own frozen blastocyst before saving a living baby." Yes I would. jcfrk101

I would just save myself. And any Zachriels I could find. Mung

Virgil Cain

StephenB- You save one and have someone else save the other. The probability that you are the only person left is too small to even consider.

Obviously, that would be the best solution. Gather up our resources and save them all. We both agree on that. Under those circumstances, there is no dilemma. The question, though, is about what we would do if the best solution is not possible. The pro-abortion enthusiasts are trying to show that we (you, harry, and I), like they, value a baby more than a developed fetus, and a developed fetus more than a zygote. They think, mistakenly that if, for any reason, or under any circumstances, we would rescue a baby before we would rescue a vat of frozen embryos, it means that we value the former more than the latter--in spite of our claims to the contrary. Hopefully, I have made it clear that this is not true. There are many reasons for making such a choice. A fireman must often save one person at a time. That doesn't mean he places more value on the lives of the first ones rescued. Zachiel's argument is simply a bad argument. StephenB

velikovskys

ISIS kills lots of non-Christians too, all under the justification of moral law.

Islamists do not believe in the "natural moral law." That is one of the reasons they are so irrational. They have a perverse notion of "Divine Law," but that is another story. StephenB

Zachriel

If they were of equal moral value, you would save the blastocysts first.

No, that isn't true. I wouldn't save the baby first because it is of more value. I would save it first because I know that it will likely live decades after I save it. I don't have that same assurance with the embryos. If I did have that assurance, that is, if I knew they would be implanted, survive the developmental process, and be born, I would save them first since saving a thousand lives is better than saving one. The life of each embryo is equally valuable compared to the life of the baby. That doesn't mean that its chances for survival are also equal. The moral calculation is that everyone deserves to be saved at the same time. The strategic decision is about what to do if the best moral solution is not possible. You are still not grasping the difference between morality and strategy. SB: They followed your philosophy of subjective value.

Actually, the Nazis claimed objective reasons for hating the Jews. You might want to review your history.

We are discussing your subjective values, according to which those whom you don't like may be justifiably killed and those whom you do like may be justifiably spared. If those are not your values, this would be a good time to correct the record. StephenB: Since you think that it is reasonable to kill a fetus on the grounds that it is not fully developed …

We haven’t staked out that position. Rather, we have pointed out that there are areas of gray that you clearly see, but refuse to acknowledge.

Earlier, you wrote, "We’re just pointing out that the vast majority of people assign a lower moral value to a blastocyst than a fully developed baby." You seem to be saying here that moral value can be determined by how far along in the developmental process the human has advanced. Since the embryo is not "fully developed," you feel that it may be justifiably killed. If so, would you also justify the killing of a two-year-old child on the grounds that it, too, is not fully developed? Meanwhile, you continue to avoid this question: Obviously, you support the killing of the zygote and the fetus. How long after conception does a child have to live before you will defend its right to live? StephenB

velikovskys- If you read what I posted they both can be saved at the same time. Virgil Cain

Virgil: StephenB- You save one and have someone else save the other. The probability that you are the only person left is too small to even consider. You still have to choose,which one first? velikovskys

Stephen: Again, you’re response is totally irrational. The Nazi’s were not “fond” of the Jews. That is why they killed them. ISIS is not fond of Christians, so they kill them. ISIS kills lots of non-Christians too, all under the justification of moral law. velikovskys

1 bornagain77

Frank Turek - Christ Community Church (April 2015) - video - (goal directed embryogenesis 27:10 minute mark) https://youtu.be/iKFfq-IwcrM?t=1629 "It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident...you have essentially lost your mind." Jay Homnick - senior editor of The American Spectator http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/to_have_a_view095041.html bornagain77

StephenB- You save one and have someone else save the other. The probability that you are the only person left is too small to even consider. And if Zachriel was in that position then Zachriel, the baby and the embryos are doomed. ;) Virgil Cain

StephenB: I cannot save both at the same time and must choose to save one first, and then the other later–otherwise both will die. And you choose to save the single baby first rather than thousands of blastocysts. If they were of equal moral value, you would save the blastocysts first. Now imagine you emerge from the fire with the vat, and while looking for an electrical outlet, you tell everyone the nature of your choice, fully expecting to be declared a hero. StephenB: (Also, the blastocysts are not “all doomed to die.” Some may be implanted. You don’t even comprehend your own question). Every human is doomed to die. StephenB: You are confusing morality with strategy. Not at all. The moral calculation and the strategy is clear. You choose to save the baby first rather than a thousand blastocysts. Of course you do. StephenB: They followed your philosophy of subjective value. Actually, the Nazis claimed objective reasons for hating the Jews. You might want to review your history. StephenB: Since you think that it is reasonable to kill a fetus on the grounds that it is not fully developed ... We haven't staked out that position. Rather, we have pointed out that there are areas of gray that you clearly see, but refuse to acknowledge. Zachriel

Zachriel

As pointed out above, they are all doomed to die. However, you choose to save the baby rather than the thousand blastocysts, even though of the thousand blastocysts, scores may live long and fruitful lives. Of course you do. Nearly everyone would, and most would consider it monstrous to do otherwise.

You still don't understand. I don't choose the baby rather than the blastocysts, that would be immoral and monstrous. I choose both. All human life has inherent value. That is a moral question. However, it is possible that, for strategic reasons, not moral reasons, I cannot save both at the same time and must choose to save one first, and then the other later--otherwise both will die. That is a question of strategy and prudence. (Also, the blastocysts are not "all doomed to die." Some may be implanted. You don't even comprehend your own question). It is no different from a fireman entering a burning building, knowing that two people are in separate rooms. If he doesn't choose to save one first, both will die. If he does choose to save one first, it is possible that both will live, since he may be able to come back and also save the second. It has nothing to do with choosing to save one rather than the other. You are confusing morality with strategy.

That’s right. The Nazis hated the Jews.

Precisely. They followed your philosophy of subjective value. They killed people they don't like and spared people they do like. Meanwhile, why are you running away from my questions: Obviously, you support the killing of the zygote and the fetus. How long after conception does a child have to live before you will defend its right to live? Since you think that it is reasonable to kill a fetus on the grounds that it is not fully developed, do you also think it is reasonable to kill a two-year-old child on the grounds that it, too, is not fully developed? StephenB

jcfrk101: My point is about your hypothetical is that no one ever operates with absolute knowledge The thought-experiment doesn't require absolute knowledge, or even extraordinary knowledge. It's a simple situation. You can save the baby first, knowing the flames will soon engulf the building, or you can save the vat of embryos first. jcfrk101: if instead of children and embryos, there where 2 children, one of which is your own child, and the other is another persons child. Most people would save their own child first, as they give a higher value to their own children than to children not their own, but would no doubt hope to save both. ETA: However, virtually no one would try to save their own frozen blastocyst before saving a living baby. Would you? Zachriel

StephenB: The frozen embryos might not live after they are saved because they may not be implanted, not because I wouldn’t plug in the electrical outlet. As pointed out above, they are all doomed to die. However, you choose to save the baby rather than the thousand blastocysts, even though of the thousand blastocysts, scores may live long and fruitful lives. Of course you do. Nearly everyone would, and most would consider it monstrous to do otherwise. StephenB: The Nazi’s were not “fond” of the Jews. That's right. The Nazis hated the Jews. Zachriel

http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/dbefruchtung/zygote03.html Eugen

Zachriel My point is about your hypothetical is that no one ever operates with absolute knowledge, God alone is omniscient. There is no situation that I can think of in which a person would ever have such a high degree of knowledge. In either case I suppose for the sake of argument I will assume the question is valid. So to answer your question I would like to ask a question in response, if instead of children and embryos, there where 2 children, one of which is your own child, and the other is another persons child. You can only save one, whom do you save? jcfrk101

SB: [If I had to choose] I would save the baby since there is a good chance that the embryos in the frozen vat will die anyway even if I rescue them.

All you have to do is plug the vat into an electrical outlet.

Some of your responses are incredible. The frozen embryos might not live after they are saved because they may not be implanted, not because I wouldn't plug in the electrical outlet. Did you not read the words, "even if I rescue them." First, you demand that I make a choice between two alternatives, then you immediately start providing suggestions for how I might avoid making a choice. You really do struggle with rational thinking. If I had to make such a choice, it would be for the reason I gave, not because one human life is more valuable than another human life. All human life has inherent worth. The value of human life is not, as you claim, "subjective." So your attempt to show that pro-lifers value one human life over another fails. Your perceived challenge is no challenge at all. SB: A zygote is the beginning of a new human being, so killing it is killing a human person.”

The question is when a developing human acquires the moral status of a person.

No, that's another question. The question at the moment is whether the zygote is human. Try to follow the argument. Learn to make distinctions. It is all part of rational thinking.

Those who engage in black-and-white thinking can’t conceive of shades of gray, even when they themselves see shades of gray while squirming to avoid the implications of their own multi-toned sight. See below on incongruity.

Your response is totally irrational. Incongruity has nothing at all to do with the scientific question of when human life begins. SB: Since you think value is subjective, and since the Nazi’s assigned no subjective value to the lives of Jews, why would it be a problem if the former killed six million of the latter?

Sure it’s a problem. As we said, we’re rather fond of humans — even if they are white on the right side. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi7QQ5pO7

Again, you're response is totally irrational. The Nazi's were not "fond" of the Jews. That is why they killed them. ISIS is not fond of Christians, so they kill them. That is the point I am dramatizing. You think that its OK to spare people that you are fond of and kill people that you are not fond of. If someone was not "fond" of you, would it be acceptable for them to take your life for that reason? Meanwhile, you are running away from my other questions: Obviously, you support the killing of the zygote and the fetus. How long after conception does a child have to live before you will defend its right to live? Since you think that it is reasonable to kill a fetus on the grounds that it is not fully developed, do you also think it is reasonable to kill a two-year-old child on the grounds that it, too, is not fully developed? StephenB

Zygote "the first cell of a new organism " lets remember human organism http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/everything/zygote03.html Our abortionist "humanist" friends here like to promote rights for anyone and anything but their hypocrisy seems to prevent them from promoting rights of a new human organism. Abortionist sus domesticus! Eugen

Stealing from God: Atheists Presuppose God for Morality | Frank Turek, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWxBxDMTzjM bornagain77

Stephen: So, when the Nazi’s had the legal right to kill Jews, they didn’t have to justify anything? That is your argument? Nazis violated international law, they were bound legally to observe.Do you have a similar law? The willfull killing of an of an unborn child is always unlawful insofar as it violates the moral law. Always? If the state’s civil laws do not recognize the moral law against murder, then the state is guilty of murder. Criminal law proscribes murder. Is refusal to donate your kidney murder is the person dies? velikovskys

Zachriel is quite happy with the crushing to death of innocent lives for the good it can do........ Amazing.... What is good in the absence of an ultimate good Zach? Where do you derive your sense of good from? Andre

Zach,

so is murder OK with you as long as it is done in the name of ‘science’? zach: "No"

And since even you yourself, given your materialistic premises, are not really a 'person' but merely a 'neuronal illusion' exactly how do you provide a foundation for your stated ethic of 'Thou shalt not murder' in the name of science? (or in the name of anything else?)

Hitler's murderous obsession to annihilate the Jews Excerpt: The introduction of the Nuremberg Race Laws in 1935 saw Jews declared non-persons, stripped of their rights, robbed of their property and isolated. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1399798/Hitlers-murderous-obsession-to-annihilate-the-Jews.html in no case in its history has the Court declared that a fetus—a developing infant in the womb—is a person. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any legal "right to life." http://www.phschool.com/curriculum_support/interactive_constitution/scc/scc35.htm

As stated previously, 'person-hood' is not a concept that materialism can accommodate, thus it is impossible for the atheistic materialist to develop a coherent moral ethic on murder or anything else:

The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – January 2014 Excerpt: Well and good. But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 "What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/eagleton-on-baggini-on-free-will/ "The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak." [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide To Reality, Ch.9] Philosophical Zombies - cartoon http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11

Thus Zach, when you state you do not support murder in the name of science, exactly who this 'you' that you are referring to that objects to murder? i.e. There is no 'you', no real person named Zach, in your worldview! If you want to come over to my basement to debate the finer details of 'personhood', I would be glad to have you over:

Cruel Logic - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9A-c8bsjc

bornagain77

Zachriel:

Whether a zygote is a person with rights is definitional,

No, it isn't. That is the dumbest thing ever. The sad part is Zachriel and its ilk actually believe that trope. Virgil Cain

bornagain77: so is murder OK with you as long as it is done in the name of ‘science’? No, but that doesn't address the misrepresentation in the edited video. bornagain77: Excerpt: People deliberately killed to provide ‘specimens’ for evolutionary research Sure. While most were from graveyards, some were "fresh". People placed a low or negative value on aborigines (with the value system predating Darwin). Scientists created demand. It was the market system at work. Zachriel

Zach, so is murder OK with you as long as it is done in the name of 'science'? Darwin’s bodysnatchers: new horrors Excerpt: People deliberately killed to provide ‘specimens’ for evolutionary research In a previous Creation magazine we related evidence that perhaps 10,000 dead bodies of Australia’s Aboriginal people were shipped to British museums in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the ‘missing link’. US evolutionists were also strongly involved in this flourishing ‘industry’ of gathering specimens of ‘subhumans’. The Smithsonian Institution in Washington holds the remains of 15,000 individuals of various races. Pickled Aboriginal brains were also in demand, to try to prove that they were inferior to those of whites. It was Darwin, after all, who wrote that the civilized races would inevitably wipe out such lesser-evolved ‘savage’ ones. A death-bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland in 1866,4 graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen. Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the 10 best skulls were packed off for overseas. http://creation.mobi/darwins-bodysnatchers-new-horrors bornagain77

harry: unwanted children are “tissue” to be parceled out and sold for a profit.

Nucatola repeatedly clarifies that there is no profit motive. She says: “This is not a new revenue stream the affiliates are looking at. This is a way to offer the patient the service that they want. Do good for the medical community.” Nucatola also makes clear at several points that the tissue donation helps medical researchers and is something many patients seek: “I think every one of them is happy to know that there’s a possibility for them to do this extra bit of good in what they do. And I think patients respond most to knowing the types of outcomes that it might contribute to, so, for example, Alzheimer’s research, Parkinson’s research.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-huppke-planned-parenthood-video-20150715-story.html

Zachriel

StephenB: So, you think value is subjective and humans have no inherent worth. We're rather fond of humans; however, others may find humans valuable only as a foodstuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIufLRpJYnI StephenB: I would save the baby since there is a good chance that the embryos in the frozen vat will die anyway even if I rescue them. All you have to do is plug the vat into an electrical outlet. It is entertaining watching people squirm to avoid the obvious implications of their position, especially those who claim to put such stock in absolute notions of truth. Don't feel you have to respond to the question if it makes you feel uncomfortable, especially if it means you are just going to try to avoid the obvious implication. We all already know the answer. The baby comes first. StephenB: I said that zygotes are humans and that killing a zygote is killing a human. Actually, what you said was "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being, so killing it is killing a human person." The question is when a developing human acquires the moral status of a person. Those who engage in black-and-white thinking can't conceive of shades of gray, even when they themselves see shades of gray while squirming to avoid the implications of their own multi-toned sight. See below on incongruity. StephenB: Since you think value is subjective, and since the Nazi’s assigned no subjective value to the lives of Jews, why would it be a problem if the former killed six million of the latter? Sure it's a problem. As we said, we're rather fond of humans — even if they are white on the right side. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi7QQ5pO7_A harry: In my own personal experience I have many times witnessed a transformation in a person’s views on abortion after their becoming aware of its gruesome, inhuman brutality. Sure. That doesn't justify the misrepresentation in the video. harry: At the same time they came to a realization of the utter dishonesty of the propaganda that is so prevalent in the mainstream media. He says with his mouth full of dishonest propaganda. The gruesomeness in the video should have been sufficient to make your point. It isn't necessary to misrepresent the facts, but the misrepresentation continues to bounce around the right wing echo chamber. harry: Most adult humans reject child killing as soon as they understand that that is what is going on. Most adult women in the West are aware of what happens with an abortion, but still support legal access in at least some circumstances. That includes women who have had abortions. jcfrk101: Your hypothetical situation is created in a manner that force people to make moral decisions in ways that will never occur. It's a thought-experiment, but it certainly could occur. While you might want to save both, you have to save one first, and the fire is spreading quickly. jcfrk101: Also as other have pointed out, the logic you used to justify abortions (50% of embryo’s spontaneously abort) is deeply flawed. We haven't justified abortions. We've merely pointed out certain incongruences in those who take a strident position against abortion. 1) Humans spend a great deal of time recovering and disposing the remains of the dead, but ignore the millions of incidents of early pregnancy loss. 2) Fertility clinics endanger large numbers of embryos in the hope of creating one baby. Very few would shut down fertility clinics. 3) The thought-experiment, which shows just how hard people will squirm to avoid the implication that they value babies far more than blastocysts. Zachriel

Zachriel Also as other have pointed out, the logic you used to justify abortions (50% of embryo's spontaneously abort) is deeply flawed. Humans face a 100% mortality rate, it doesn't make murder and more acceptable. jcfrk101

Zachriel Your hypothetical situation is created in a manner that force people to make moral decisions in ways that will never occur. Most will never know that the embryo's will not survive, you have forced the God view and created an unreal scenario in which moral decision are never made. Saving both the children and the embryo's would be the moral decision, and given that no one would really know whether or not choosing one over the other would result in death, we would never have to make that choice. Save both, the order is irrelevant to morality since in real life such knowledge of the future does not exist. jcfrk101

You can read the full transcript of the interview at http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf Here's an excerpt from pages 50-51 of what the Planned Parenthood person was saying: "But I really liked babies, believe it or not. And I said ok, I’m going to be a pediatrician. I don’t know if you know much about pediatrics, it’s really treating moms. It’s not really treating kids, and the kids you do treat, they’re sick, and it’s very depressing and I said there’s no way I can do this. ... And on that day, there was patient that was transferred to me, from an outside clinic, who had had a D&E, dilation and evacuation, late second trimester abortion, she was bleeding. ... And she actually bled to death. ... I probably had a very different reaction than most people would, which was well I do D&Es all the time, and I don’t ever have complications. And I think I’m pretty good at them, I need to keep making sure that there are lots of people doing these D&Es safely so there’s not another patient like this." She found it depressing to treat sick kids, but didn't have any problems with killing them before they were born, or selling their body parts. After reading all 60 pages, I was reminded of the subtitle of Hannah Arendt's book on Adolph Eichmann: the banality of evil. There was a lot of discussion of the day-to-day mechanics of the abortion business, as well as the sociopolitical environment. It also included some self-serving rhetoric about altruistic motives of workers in the industry, and "selling" clients on the idea that the remains could be used for beneficial medical research. RalphDavidWestfall

Zachriel

That would be the majority of adult humans ...

In my own personal experience I have many times witnessed a transformation in a person's views on abortion after their becoming aware of its gruesome, inhuman brutality. At the same time they came to a realization of the utter dishonesty of the propaganda that is so prevalent in the mainstream media. Most adult humans reject child killing as soon as they understand that that is what is going on. They are still normal humans because of a faithfulness to the basic morality that is built into all of us. Unfaithfulness to that basic morality turns one into something less than fully human, deadening the instinctive reaction humans have to protect the young of their own kind. Many women who have had abortions are victims of this poisonous propaganda -- victims in the truest sense of the word. Many of them are now among the most fervent and effective Pro-Lifers, fully human, fully alive and doing all they can to protect children and other women from being victimized by vicious propaganda that must make Josef Goebbels smile from midst of the flames of Hell. harry

Zachriel

Not directly. Value is subjective. Your “What it is” presumably refers to objective qualities.

So, you think value is subjective and humans have no inherent worth. Duly noted.

So, given the choice, what would YOU do; save the baby, or a vat of frozen embryos?

I would save the baby since there is a good chance that the embryos in the frozen vat will die anyway even if I rescue them.

Whether a zygote is a person with rights is definitional, not a conclusion.

I said nothing about rights. I said that zygotes are humans and that killing a zygote is killing a human. That is not definitional. It is a scientific fact. Now to my questions: Obviously, you support the killing of the zygote and the fetus. How long after conception does a child have to live before you will defend its right to live? Since you think that it is reasonable to kill a fetus on the grounds that it is not fully developed, do you also think it is reasonable to kill a two year child on the grounds that it, too, is not fully developed? Since you think value is subjective, and since the Nazi's assigned no subjective value to the lives of Jews, why would it be a problem if the former killed six million of the latter? StephenB

StephenB: The value that people assign to a thing has nothing at all to do with what it is. Not directly. Value is subjective. Your "What it is" presumably refers to objective qualities. So, given the choice, what would YOU do; save the baby, or a vat of frozen embryos? StephenB: A zygote is the beginning of a new human being, so killing it is killing a human person. Whether a zygote is a person with rights is definitional, not a conclusion. Zachriel

Zachriel

Sure we do. From the incongruence pointed out about.

Please address the substance of my arguments: The value that people assign to a thing has nothing at all to do with what it is. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being, so killing it is killing a human person. You support the killing of a developing embryo on the grounds that it is not fully formed, which is an irrational argument since even a ten year old child is still developing. We can safely assume that you support the murder of the unborn fetus as well. How old does a child have to be before you would object to its murder? StephenB

StephenB: You have no evidence to support that claim. Sure we do. From the incongruence between early pregnancy loss and how death is otherwise treated. From the acceptance of fertility clinics endangering numbers of zygotes in the hope of producing a single child. From the answers and non-answers to the thought-experiment. harry: And that is how most people who by their immorality have rendered themselves less than fully human respond to babies being brutally dismembered. That would be the majority of adult humans, who you say are "less than fully human". Nearly everyone would save the baby before any number of frozen embryos. That's because they see the baby as a person, but the frozen embryos only as possibilities. Zachriel

harry,

The reality is that “human” is all any of us are, and that is what we are from conception onwards. The reality is that all that makes us human is present from conception onward.

If all you mean by "human" is a biological member of the species, then yes. But if you mean "human" as a "person" then I disagree. "I" as a person was not present at conception. The things that make "me" me were not present. There were no thoughts, emotions, feelings, consciousness, sentience, memories, etc. goodusername

velikovskys

The mother does not have to justify anything, it is her legal right.

So, when the Nazi's had the legal right to kill Jews, they didn't have to justify anything? That is your argument? StephenB

Zachriel

That’s how most people view the question, as shades of gray, with a late term fetus having a higher value than a blastocyst. Fertility clinics routinely risk the loss of several fertilized eggs in order to produce one viable baby.

And that is how most people who by their immorality have rendered themselves less than fully human respond to babies being brutally dismembered. Normal people, upon discovering the reality of what is being done to innocent children, have an entirely different response. Some claimed there were shades of gray in the issue of American slavery. That didn't change the fact that American slavery was inherently wrong and needed to be brought to and end. Nor do your lame remarks about shades of gray change the fact that the state pretending to have the authority to sanction the killing of innocent humanity is inherently wrong and "legal" child-killing needs to be brought to an end. harry

velikovskys

Unlawful and premeditated , the victim could be a nazi war criminal and it could be murder.

The willfull killing of an of an unborn child is always unlawful insofar as it violates the moral law. If the state's civil laws do not recognize the moral law against murder, then the state is guilty of murder. StephenB

Harry: After babies are born they still require the bodies of others to survive. Sure,but not necessarily the mother. All children require others to survive Of course but they do not require to be inside those other's bodies. That doesn’t justify ripping the arms and legs off of children and crushing their heads, and selling the body parts that haven’t been destroyed. The mother does not have to justify anything, it is her legal right. Just as you don't have to justify refusing to donate your kidney or blood to another person. It is illegal to sell body parts for a profit beyond reasonable costs, but yes it is better for some good to come from bad. velikovskys

Zachriel

We’re not making an argument.

There is a good reason for that. You have no argument.

We’re just pointing out that the vast majority of people assign a lower moral value to a blastocyst than a fully developed baby.

You have no evidence to support that claim. In any case, the value that people assign to a thing has nothing at all to do with what it is. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being, so killing it is killing a human person. However, it seems evident that you also support the killing of a developing embryo on the grounds that it is not fully formed, which is an irrational argument since even a ten year old child is still developing. More importantly, I used the word "fetus," because I anticipated your response. We can safely assume that you support the murder of the unborn fetus as well. How old does a child have to be before you would object to its murder? StephenB

velikovskys

A special class of human life which requires the use of another’s body to survive.

After babies are born they still require the bodies of others to survive. All children require others to survive. That doesn't justify ripping the arms and legs off of children and crushing their heads, and selling the body parts that haven't been destroyed. harry

Stephen: An murder, by definition, is the taking of an innocent human life. Actually according to the Merriam-Webster 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought Unlawful and premeditated , the victim could be a nazi war criminal and it could be murder. An abortion, by definition, is the taking of an innocent human life since its objective is to end the life of the human fetus. A special class of human life which requires the use of another's body to survive. velikovskys

StephenB: What your argument against it? We're not making an argument. We're just pointing out that the vast majority of people assign a lower moral value to a blastocyst than a fully developed baby. Axel: The answer is simple enough, Zack: The crying baby, since a) it’s capacity for feeling pain would be so much the greater; So if you knew the baby were anesthetized, then you would save the frozen embryos? Most people would still save the baby. Axel: b) because we respond emotionally, and instinctively so, to such cries. Humans have the ability to think, and therefore do more than react to simple instinct. Axel: It becomes more complicated when the scenario you have conveniently omitted to address, obtains, i.e. instead of zygotes, babies that are either fully-formed or sufficiently formed, but clearly (through our visual monitoring of them in the womb) showing emotions, are the alternative to the crying baby. That's how most people view the question, as shades of gray, with a late term fetus having a higher value than a blastocyst. Fertility clinics routinely risk the loss of several fertilized eggs in order to produce one viable baby. Zachriel

'Here’s a simple thought-experiment. There’s a fire at an fertility clinic, and there is precious little time before the entire building is engulfed in flames. Down one hallway, there’s the soft purring sound of an incubator with a thousand frozen embryos; down the other hallway, the cries of a newborn baby. Which do you choose to save?' The answer is simple enough, Zack: The crying baby, since a) it's capacity for feeling pain would be so much the greater; b) because we respond emotionally, and instinctively so, to such cries. It becomes more complicated when the scenario you have conveniently omitted to address, obtains, i.e. instead of zygotes, babies that are either fully-formed or sufficiently formed, but clearly (through our visual monitoring of them in the womb) showing emotions, are the alternative to the crying baby. Again, the primal compassion in response to the crying and the immediate awareness of the baby's already having successfully exited the womb should prompt its rescue as the priority. You may well say, hey, that's a fine thing, to allow your thinking to be swayed by your emotions in such a crisis. However, it is the very scenario when it is reassuring that out humanity (our mammalian kind of response) should assert itself. Read the parable of Lazarus and the hapless stumbling compassion of the street-dogs, the dumb beasts, who licked Lazarus' sores. One sovereign consideration for the Christian is that there are situations in which, if our spiritual life is fairly well-developed, we will find ourselves in situations in which we can only act in faith and hope for the best, since the situation is too knotty and complex to be certain about the best course to take. Which is why the rigid, Pelagian legalism of the Pharisees was anathematized by Christ. In a state of anxiety, even panic, that such an emergency as you describe would be likely to engender, it seems likely that one would be prone to act on a primal sense of compassion, aroused by the 'extra-uteral' baby's tears and wailing, which, in turn, would hardly be likely to be condemned by Christ; indeed, cerebral and philosophical musings might betray a psychopathic disposition. However, while an atheist might feel smug that the most elementary zygotes would not sense pain (according to our understanding), he has already given the game away, that the pain suffered by a baby being dismembered or even removed from the womb by suction doesn't figure at all among his considerations. You lose. Likely, eternally. What goes round, comes round. ' Incidentally, I know the Greeks use to be ultra smart, but since when has Greek been the definitive language, Zack? Axel

SB: Irrelevant to the question of murder. Abortion is clearly murder. Zachriel

Clearly, not everyone agrees with you. Mere assertion is not an argument.

An murder, by definition, is the taking of an innocent human life. An abortion, by definition, is the taking of an innocent human life since its objective is to end the life of the human fetus. If the objective is to save the life of the mother, then it is not an abortion, since the loss of the fetus's life would be incidental and not the primary objective. Therefore, abortion is murder. What your argument against it? Do you support a procedure the objective of which is to end the life of a fetus? If so, then you support murder. Do you have a counter argument? StephenB

Almost every human being places a much high moral value on living babies than on a blastocyst, or a thousand blastocysts.

Not. Even. Wrong. Virgil Cain

Clearly, not everyone agrees with you.

The people who disagree do so with only by using mental gymnastics and inconsistencies. Theirs is a very subjective position not grounded in anything but their personal feelings. Virgil Cain

StephenB: Irrelevant to the question of murder. Abortion is clearly murder. Clearly, not everyone agrees with you. Mere assertion is not an argument. harry: Most people would instinctively respond to the cries of the baby. Sure, but that's not the question. The question is what would you do? Do you save a thousand silent blastocysts or one live baby? The answer is clear. Almost every human being places a much high moral value on living babies than on a blastocyst, or a thousand blastocysts. harry: Regardless of the etymology of the Greek word used in Luke, “with child” has always meant just that The source we provided suggested "with child" dates from the twelfth century. Zachriel

Life is a developmental process that starts at conception and continues until death. Virgil Cain

Zachriel, As for your thought experiment: Most people would instinctively respond to the cries of the baby. What our instincts direct us to do does not change reality. The reality is that human life begins at conception. The reality is that "human" is all any of us are, and that is what we are from conception onwards. The reality is that all that makes us human is present from conception onward. None of the nutrition and hydration we process after our conception adds "humanity" to us. At conception we are already as human as we will ever be; if we aren't fully human then we will never be human. If it is wrong to kill you or me, it wrong to kill the newly conceived child. Of course, you won't even admit it is objectively wrong to kill you or me. Regardless of the etymology of the Greek word used in Luke, "with child" has always meant just that, which is why it was always used to accurately describe the state of a pregnant woman. harry

There’s a fire at an fertility clinic, and there is precious little time before the entire building is engulfed in flames. Down one hallway, there’s the soft purring sound of an incubator with a thousand frozen embryos; down the other hallway, the cries of a newborn baby. Which do you choose to save?

I would have the staff save the frozen embryos and incubator while I saved the newborn baby. :cool: Virgil Cain

So you won’t attempt an answer.

I would have bet the ranch on that. :-) goodusername

Zachriel Zachriel

Here’s a simple thought-experiment. There’s a fire at an fertility clinic, and there is precious little time before the entire building is engulfed in flames. Down one hallway, there’s the soft purring sound of an incubator with a thousand frozen embryos; down the other hallway, the cries of a newborn baby. Which do you choose to save?

Irrelevant to the question of murder. Abortion is clearly murder. StephenB

harry: Here is another thought experiment. So you won't attempt an answer. We're not justifying anything, but pointing out the obvious. You would turn towards the crying baby. Zachriel

harry: From time immemorial a pregnant woman was known to be “with child.” A common reference to "with child" is from Luke 2:5. However, the Greek word "egkuos" actually means swelling from within, and doesn't have an etymology related to child. Rather , it is a euphemism for pregnant. As for "with child",

Phrase with child "pregnant" (late 12c.) http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=child

Zachriel

Zachriel, Here is another thought experiment. Thousands of children are being brutally dismembered daily in our midst. Instead of acknowledging the horror, injustice and immorality of this reality, some people respond to it by coming up with stupid thought experiments in an incredibly feeble attempt to justify these atrocities. What do you choose to tell such people? harry

harry: From time immemorial a pregnant woman was known to be “with child.” Abortion has been known and practiced since time immemorial. (ETA: Consider that fornication was punishable by stoning even in the time of Jesus.) Different societies have had different traditions. One such tradition was waiting until seven days after birth to recognize the child. More recently, it was the time of 'quickening'. In the modern U.S., it's viability, but the state can regulate it before that point. harry: That common sense was the reason Americans outlawed abortion in the first place. American abortion laws coincided with modern medicine, which was largely under the control of men. harry: And don’t tell me taking the life of the child in the womb isn’t murder because it isn’t “unlawful” homicide since the U.S. Supreme Court “legalized” it. That wasn't our argument, but that most people don't consider a zygote to have the same moral value as a baby. Here's a simple thought-experiment. There's a fire at an fertility clinic, and there is precious little time before the entire building is engulfed in flames. Down one hallway, there's the soft purring sound of an incubator with a thousand frozen embryos; down the other hallway, the cries of a newborn baby. Which do you choose to save? Zachriel

Zachriel,

Your are conflating abortion with murder. -- Zachriel Mur´der Pronunciation: mûr´d?rd n. 1. The offense of killing a human being with malice prepense or aforethought, express or implied; intentional and unlawful homicide. The killing of their children had, in the account of God, the guilt of murder, as the offering them to idols had the guilt of idolatry. -- Locke -- http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/Murder

From time immemorial a pregnant woman was known to be "with child." That is what pregnancy was called, being "with child." That common sense was the reason Americans outlawed abortion in the first place. You refuse to acknowledge there is such a thing as behavior that is objectively wrong. You abuse language. All in attempt to defend the indefensible. And don't tell me taking the life of the child in the womb isn't murder because it isn't "unlawful" homicide since the U.S. Supreme Court "legalized" it. The killing of innocent, defenseless children cannot be made legal any more than the Earth can be made flat by judicial decree. This is because humanity precedes the state and brings it into existence. The state exists for humanity, not humanity for the state. It is humanity that bestows and withdraws the state's right to exist, not the reverse. Roe not only abruptly withdrew the protection of law from the most innocent and defenseless among us, it withdrew civilization from humanity, returning us to barbarism, where the powerful trample upon the powerless. Caesar can only pretend to legitimize this. Only fools will be fooled by this. harry

Silver Asiatic: Those should not be considered part of the ‘spontaneous’ miscarriage since they’re chemically induced. So, I wonder if that factors into the 50% number. No. The studies are women who are open to fertility and sexually active. Zachriel

Zach

Huh? Are you referring to birth control that may prevent implantation?

Those should not be considered part of the 'spontaneous' miscarriage since they're chemically induced. So, I wonder if that factors into the 50% number. Silver Asiatic

Dr. JDD

Us Westeners like to think we are so civil and moral, judge the harsh penal systems of Muslim countries for example whilst we happily allow and proactively support the murders of millions of innocents every year.

Right you are. It is so easy to lament the sins of others while we wallow in our own. Islamists murder infidels in the name of God; secularists murder babies in the name of self. StephenB

Zachriel

It’s difficult to detect fertilization in humans, for obvious reasons, and various studies have found pregnancy loss to be anywhere from 30% to over 50%.

So far, that seems to be correct. Stay tuned. StephenB

SB: Based on my ongoing research and your continuing input, I would say that the miscarriage rates are 10-20% [known pregnancy] and 30-50% [from conception to the end]. Zachriel

Which is consistent with our original statement.

I agree. I was using numbers based on known pregnancies. You were using numbers based on known pregnancies and unknown pregnancies. At this point, I am waiting for a final answer from someone who is directly involved in the research. StephenB

StephenB: neither of which supports the claims that you and Zachriel are making, namely that 50% or more of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. It's difficult to detect fertilization in humans, for obvious reasons, and various studies have found pregnancy loss to be anywhere from 30% to over 50%. That's why our statement was phrased as "up to half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion". In any case, even if we accept that about one in four conceptions are lost without notice on the part of the woman, there's an incongruity. When someone dies, people make great efforts to recover and respectfully dispose of the remains — not so with the one in four conceptions that are naturally lost before implantation. StephenB: Based on my ongoing research and your continuing input, I would say that the miscarriage rates are 10-20% [known pregnancy] and 30-50% [from conception to the end]. Which is consistent with our original statement. Mung: Zachriel seems to be arguing that in the first week of a pregnancy a human caused abortion is virtually indistinguishable from one that occurs due to other factors. Huh? Are you referring to birth control that may prevent implantation? Mung: I thought science had the answer to everything. Actually, that's the amazing thing about science. Science can give us reasonably reliable (albeit tentative) answers to some questions, while the vast majority of the universe is shrouded in darkness. Zachriel

From the Judeo-Christian perspective, the Torah makes it clear that an unborn baby is a "life". It seems also clear to be relevant when a woman knows she is pregnant. Given that even without modern technology a woman usually knows she is pregnant in a relatively short period of time and secondly that modern permissible abortion can take place for an extended period of time after a woman would know, the decision to abort is one of willfully taking life, I.e. murder. It is impossible to extrapolate to determine the "true" spontaneous abortion rate if you wish to include from conception so including that stage and quoting 50% as factual is pure speculation and often driven by in vitro experiments and observations which cannot be directly correlated to the in vivo scenario. Let us also not forget many of the loudest materialists (Dawkins, Harris et al) have even made the clear assertion that there could be justification for termination of ex vivo born babies based on genetic or other illnesses that they perceive to be burdening or discomfort to the child. Of course, this is the natural place that materialist logic will take you. Why allow weaker genes to be passed on? It will only hinder evolutionary progress. Etc. Us Westeners like to think we are so civil and moral, judge the harsh penal systems of Muslim countries for example whilst we happily allow and proactively support the murders of millions of innocents every year. Dr JDD

I just don't understand why in this modern age science cannot even tell us if a woman is pregnant or not. I thought science had the answer to everything. Silly me. Mung

StephenB, I would say that that is probably on the low end, but not unreasonable as there is still a lot to learn about how often fertilization takes place and the success rate of implantation. One thing to keep in mind when studying miscarriage rates is that - and this would be surprising to most people - the medical community is divided on the definition of "pregnant". Many define it as the moment when fertilization begins, but many others define it as the moment when implantation takes place, about a week after fertilization. That's one reason why stats on miscarriage vary so much - many don't count the death of an embryo during the first week. (Perhaps they should compromise and just say that they're a "a little bit pregnant" ;-) goodusername

Zachriel seems to be arguing that in the first week of a pregnancy a human caused abortion is virtually indistinguishable from one that occurs due to other factors. Therefore human caused abortions are perfectly natural. Mung

goodusername

But studies are showing that about half or more of miscarriages occur by this point. So it appears that in these particular studies, that they don’t even recognize that the woman is pregnant until the most dangerous part of development is already over.

Based on my ongoing research and your continuing input, I would say that the miscarriage rates are 10-20% [known pregnancy] and 30-50% [from conception to the end]. I have a good inside resource that I can contact on Monday that will provide a more authoritative answer. StephenB

So Roy, I'm very glad that you do not hold that 'disgusting, vile, and despicable', position on abortion and the selling of body tissues. And truly am sorry that I attributed that position to you if you do not hold it. But you do realize, in Zach's overall defense of abortion in this very thread, that that is the exact position that Zach is ultimately defending? or did the little matter of the subject of the OP escape your notice when you decided to side up with zach? and, since you now apparently consider me 'vile and disgusting', (instead of being rightly disgusted that Zach would even attempt to defend such a morally vile position in the first place), does this mean that you are not going to retract your false statements as to Darwin being a 'foremost scientist' of his day which he certainly was not? Or is your dramatic over the top disgust of me, instead of the abortion issue itself, just a side issue to distract from the fact that you were wrong in your claim about Darwin's true rank as a scientist? A rank which was, in reality, of the 'stamp collecting' category of a scientist? bornagain77

Roy, You'll say: "bornagain77, you are disgusting" but you wont say: "the crushing of baby’s skulls in the womb and then selling their tissues for money" is disgusting? ? Andrew asauber

But then again roy, being an atheist with no objective morality, an atheist who condones the crushing of baby’s skulls in the womb and then selling their tissues for money, ...

bornagain77, you are disgusting. Your statement above is a vile, despicable, deliberate libel. I do not condone any such thing, and never have. You have no basis for that accusation other than your own bigotry, and no reason other than derogation to include it. You are beneath contempt. Roy Roy

StephenB,

In any case, the very first sentence in the report is clear enough:

Well, it's not clear enough because that leaves out the fact that they don't detect miscarriages that occur before implantation. They touch on that a few paragraphs later when they write that "this method underestimates the miscarriage rate" because it doesn't detect the very earliest miscarriages. The method they are using to detect miscarriages is they test for the presence of human chorionic gonadotropin, and then continue testing to see if the hormone disappears (indicating a miscarriage). The hormone is made by the placenta. But the placenta doesn't even begin developing until after a successful implantation, about 8 days after fertilization. And then the placenta has to make enough of the hormone to be detected. But studies are showing that about half or more of miscarriages occur by this point. So it appears that in these particular studies, that they don't even recognize that the woman is pregnant until the most dangerous part of development is already over. goodusername

Roy, Darwin was certainly not a "foremost" scientist during his day. You might want to look up the definition of foremost before you accuse me of lack of integrity:

fore·most most prominent in rank, importance, or position. before anything else in rank, importance, or position; in the first place.

Darwin's achievements were trivial and even wrong compared to Faraday's and Maxwell's 'foremost' achievements in science during that time. For instance, Zach states:

Here is a list of Darwin’s primary scientific output: * The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle * Natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle * The Breeding of Animals * The structure and distribution of coral reefs. * Fertilisation of British orchids by insect agency * On the agency of bees in the fertilisation of papilionaceous flowers

As to zoology, although Darwin collected many specimens during the voyage and should be noted for that achievement, Alfred Wallace himself can be argued to be foremost in that area during Darwin's day since he did far more field work than Darwin ever did. Moreover, zoology is 'stamp collecting' as far the real science practiced by Maxwell and Faraday is concerned!

"Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting." -- Ernest Rutherford

As to his claimed achievement of,,,

"Natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle"

Darwin is now known to have been dead wrong on a prediction that he had made concerning the 'Natural history and geology' of a country he had visited in South America on the Beagle. The following video is very interesting for it shows a geological formation that is now known to have been formed by a catastrophic flood, yet Charles Darwin himself had 'predicted' the geological formation was formed 'gradually':

Where Darwin Went Wrong - geology video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3darzVqzV2o

Being dead wrong in a specific prediction about the history and geology of a geological formation DOES NOT make one 'foremost' in that area. As to his claimed foremost authority in "The Breeding of Animals" All I have to say is, 'You have got to be kidding'! Breeders of horses in Kentucky during Darwin's time had far more knowledge about animal husbandry than Darwin ever did. If Darwin would have been 'foremost' in that area (i.e. in animal breeding, which farmers and ranchers had been doing for thousands of years before Darwin was even born by the way), Darwin would have soon realized to there are limits to the amount of variation that you can expect to get out of a specific kind of animal through selective breeding,,,

“Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) “This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create…. (Quoted in “Discover Interview: Lynn Margulis Says She’s Not Controversial, She’s Right,” Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011).) THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRAINTS ON VARIATION, FROM DARWIN TO THE PRESENT - IGOR POPOV - 2009 Excerpt: There are limitations to variability. "The real number of variations is lesser than expected one. There are no blue-eyed Drosophila, no viviparous birds or turtles, no hexapod mammals, etc. Such observations provoke non-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. Darwin tried rather unsuccessfully to solve the problem of the contradictions between his model of random variability and the existence of constraints. He tried to hide this complication citing abundant facts on other phenomena. The authors of the modern versions of Darwinism followed this strategy, allowing the question to persist. ...However, he was forced to admit some cases where creating anything humans may wish for was impossible. For example, when the English farmers decided to get cows with thick hams, they soon abandoned this attempt since they perished too frequently during delivery. Evidently such cases provoked an idea on the limitations to variability... The problem of the constraints on variation was not solved neither within the framework of the proper Darwin’s theory, nor within the framework of modern Darwinism." http://www.ludusvitalis.org/textos/32/32-11_popov.pdf GMO Bulls Now A Reality - January 11, 2014 Excerpt: "Due to genetic selection and experiments, the Belgian Blue is a humongous species of Bull, packed with muscles and meat. ...There is a gene that regulates the growth of muscles in cattle, These cows have been selectively bred from animals that contain a copy of this gene that doesn't work, as a result their muscles grow far larger than normal [They have a deletion mutation that prevents control of muscular growth = loss of genetic material]. ..Their uninhibited muscle growth presents a lot of health hazards, calves can develop enlarged tongues and stiff legs which make it difficult for them to eat and move, leading to an early and painful death." http://naturalhealthwarriors.com/gmo-bulls-now-a-reality/ K´necting The Dots: Modeling Functional Integration In Biological Systems - June 11, 2010 Excerpt: “If an engineer modifies the length of the piston rods in an internal combustion engine, but does not modify the crankshaft accordingly, the engine won’t start. Similarly, processes of development are so tightly integrated temporally and spatially that one change early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream” (1) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/k%C2%B4necting-the-dots-modeling-functional-integration-in-biological-systems/ "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies,, in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." Kevin Kelly from his book, "Out of Control" https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-evolutionary-tree-continues-to-fall-falsified-predictions-backpedaling-hgts-and-serendipity-squared/#comment-392638

And Darwin, if he were truly 'foremost' in this area of animal breeding, would have also soon realized that inbreeding presents insurmountable problems for his theory, and would have thus never published his theory.

Inbreeding - Pros and cons Excerpt: The ultimate result of continued inbreeding is terminal lack of vigor and probable extinction as the gene pool contracts, fertility decreases, abnormalities increase and mortality rates rise. http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm 100 Years of Breed “Improvement” – Comparison photos of Pure Breds from 100 years ago to today – Sept. 2012 Excerpt: "Several "pure bred" dogs are now so incredibly inbred they have many genetic problems that severely reduce their quality of life." The dogs on the left are from the 1915 book, ‘Breeds of All Nations‘ by W.E. Mason. The examples on the right are modern examples from multiple sources (which show the progressive genetic deterioration of the pure breds). http://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/ “When first cousins marry, their children have a reduction of life expectancy of nearly 10 years. Why is this? It is because inbreeding exposes the genetic mistakes within the genome (slightly detrimental recessive mutations) that have not yet had time to “come to the surface”. Inbreeding is like a sneak preview, or foreshadowing, of where we are going to be genetically as a whole as a species in the future. The reduced life expectancy of inbred children reflects the overall aging of the genome that has accumulated thus far, and reveals the hidden reservoir of genetic damage that have been accumulating in our genomes.” Sanford; Genetic Entropy; page 147

Far from being foremost in animal breeding, Darwin's ignorance of animal breeding is clearly revealed because he ignored those two insurmountable problems for his theory, (i.e limits to variation and inbreeding), problems which are commonly known to people well versed in animal husbandry, but Darwin published his book anyway. As to the two other claimed 'foremost' achievements by Darwin in science:

* Fertilisation of British orchids by insect agency * On the agency of bees in the fertilisation of papilionaceous flowers

Although both those examples are clearly examples of intelligent design (references given upon request), I consider both those examples relatively trivial as far as hard science itself in concerned. i.e. Can you say 'stamp collecting'? As axel so aptly put it, Darwin 'was just another bumbling Mr Magoo' To summarize roy,,, you and zach both, through your lack of integrity, have greatly overstated Darwin's contribution to science, and have both overlooked gargantuan mistakes that he made in his 'science', just so to support your atheistic bias. And no, considering the lack of integrity I see from atheists day in and day out, I do not expect you to retract your statements. But then again roy, being an atheist with no objective morality, an atheist who condones the crushing of baby's skulls in the womb and then selling their tissues for money, means never, ever, having to say you are sorry does it not? bornagain77

goodusername

Trying to detect such early pregnancies with hormones is very difficult – and so when the same type of study was done 5 years later, but with newer more sensitive methods – the number jumped to 31%: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07.....riage.html

I am aware of that study, but I do not have access to it. In any case, the very first sentence in the report is clear enough: "Thirty-one percent of all conceptions end in miscarriage, usually in the early months of pregnancy and often before women even know they are pregnant." So, we have now considered two pieces of evidence, one direct reference to a study (mine) and another indirect reference to a study (yours), neither of which supports the claims that you and Zachriel are making, namely that 50% or more of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Still, I will do more research over the weekend to solidify the point either way. StephenB

“Seriously?” Yes seriously! I don’t care how many atta-boys Darwin may have been awarded from his colleagues before he published his book. Darwin certainly was NOT a “foremost” scientist of his day such as say Maxwell or Faraday. Not even close to being in their “foremost” league!

The members of the Royal Society committee, who were familiar with Darwin's earlier works, considered Darwin to be one of the most important contributors to science at the time. I see no reason to reject their view for your less-informed one. I doubt Zachriel does either.

The main point is to actually look at his theory and recognize it for the tea-leaf reading pseudo-science that it actually is!

I understand why you might want to distract from your ignorance of Darwin's achievements prior to publication of Origin, but in this specific case his theory of evolution is completely irrelevant. The main point here is his earlier work. Your insistence on attempting to divert elsewhere merely confirms you have nothing to offer. Roy P.S. Some-one with integrity would have withdrawn their accusation against Zachriel when faced with facts that support his viewpoint. Roy

harry: You never answered my question: Because you were using the question to sidestep our own question concerning your claim about "engineering". harry: Do you think it is wrong that children are routinely murdered in the U.S. who are older and more viable than many patients routinely cared for in modern newborn intensive care units? Your are conflating abortion with murder. Late-term abortion is not routine, and is rarely elective. Zachriel

Zachriel, You never answered my question: "Do you think it is wrong that children are routinely murdered in the U.S. who are older and more viable than many patients routinely cared for in modern newborn intensive care units?" In the NICU wanted children are precious babies. Outside of it, older, more viable, but unwanted children are "tissue" to be parceled out and sold for a profit. This is irrational. While human body parts apparently have some commercial value, the value of a human life is inestimable; it is infinitely greater than the sum total of its merchandisable body parts. The value of a human life is not rooted in its being wanted by another, whether that be living and whole or dead and in pieces. Since, in another discussion on this site, I couldn't get you to acknowledge that there was such a thing as behavior that is objectively wrong, I suspect you approve of this situation in spite of its irrationality. Either way, please explain your position and the principles upon which it is based. harry

"Seriously?" Yes seriously! I don't care how many atta-boys Darwin may have been awarded from his colleagues before he published his book. Darwin certainly was NOT a "foremost" scientist of his day such as say Maxwell or Faraday. Not even close to being in their "foremost" league! Moreover, leading scientists of Darwin's day mocked Darwin for his unscientific theory that he promoted in his book. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-day-the-music-died/#comment-572455 Which is the main point anyway. i.e. Darwinism is, as leading scientists of his day pointed out to him, a pseudo-science! The main point is not about artificially propping up Darwin's reputation to see if he had the esteem of his friends in the societies that he joined, as you atheists would like to pretend it is. The main point is to actually look at his theory and recognize it for the tea-leaf reading pseudo-science that it actually is! https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-day-the-music-died/#comment-572465 As I said before, "when history is finally written, Darwin will be remembered as one of the worst charlatans of pseudo-science ever." Of note, Maxwell and Faraday, whom no one would dispute as to being the 'foremost' scientists of Darwin's day, were both devout Christians. The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell - Ian Hutchinson http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-genius-and-faith-of-faraday-and-maxwell bornagain77

Zachriel states: “Darwin was a already a foremost scientist of his day” That claim is a lie.

Seriously? Even the most cursory research would disclose that before Origin was published Darwin was already a fellow of the Royal Society, the Royal Zoological Society and the Linnaean Society; had been vice-president of the Geological Society of London; and had been awarded a Royal Medal for one of the "most important contributions to the advancement of Natural Knowledge". Roy Roy

StephenB: No, the correct number is 15%. The source of your information is unreliable. The National Institutes of Health is one of the world's foremost medical research centers, and a valid authority on questions of medical science. Zachriel

StephenB, Trying to detect such early pregnancies with hormones is very difficult - and so when the same type of study was done 5 years later, but with newer more sensitive methods - the number jumped to 31%: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/27/us/study-finds-31-rate-of-miscarriage.html These studies rely on the presence of human chorionic gonadotropin, and so they're talking about the odds of miscarriage after the embryo successfully implants. (Less sensitive techniques at detecting the hormone would rely on the pregnancy being further along in order to be detected, and so would have lower miscarriage rates.) So what are the odds of a fertilized egg failing to implant? Estimates are 30-50%. So 30-50% fail to implant, and of those that succeed, another 30% or so later miscarry. 50% suddenly sounds pretty optimistic. goodusername

goodusername

Most of the sources from the past decade I can find put the figure at 50% on the low end to about 3/4.

I don't believe those studies are accurate or disinterested inasumch as those who conduct them seem to nave good reasons for wanting high numbers. That would seem to be the case with the Stanford study. In keeping with that point, I would like to know more about the methodology (studying frozen embryos is hardly a measure of the natural development of a pregnancy). The only truly scientific study I could find (and verify) was this one. (Its older, but as far as I can tell, it is the one that produced the most accurate results). [Lancet. 1983 May 21;1(8334):1126-7. Unsuspected pregnancy loss in healthy women. Whittaker PG, Taylor A, Lind T. Abstract "A sensitive and specific radioimmunoassay was used to determine human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in serum samples obtained from 91 normal healthy women during 226 ovulatory cycles in which contraception was not being practised. Known conceptions occurred in 85 of these cycles; 74 ended in the births of live normal babies and the remaining 11 aborted spontaneously. Vaginal bleeding occurred at the expected time on the remaining 141 occasions and was accepted as normal menstruation by the patients; but concentrations of hCG consistent with pregnancy were detected in the serum of 7 individuals. Expressed as a proportion of conceptions, about 8% of human pregnancies are lost at such an early stage of development that the patients are unaware that conception has occurred."] StephenB

As a society we will pay a price for tolerating this evil. Congress must act immediately to defund PP. The US attorney general must prosecute those responsible since it is a federal offense. Also the FBI too since state lines have been crossed. Call you congressman and ask them what they will do about this. buffalo

15%? The lowest figure I could find is about 30%, and that was from a source decades old, when far less was known about this area. Most of the sources from the past decade I can find put the figure at 50% on the low end to about 3/4. This says 2/3: https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2010/10/earlier-more-accurate-prediction-of-embryo-survival-enabled-by-research.html I'm not sure where the 15% figure comes from, but this might explain it: http://www.babycenter.com/0_understanding-miscarriage_252.bc As this site explains, about 15% of pregnancies end after the woman knows she's pregnant - i.e. after she's pregnant for a few weeks (and the most dangerous time has passed), but nearly half end before then, and usually the woman won't even know she's miscarried. goodusername

Dr. JDD

I stopped paying attention to anything Zachriel said after he claimed 50% of embryos are spontaneously aborted in nature.

As well you should. StephenB

Zachriel

You do realize that up to half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion?

No, the correct number is 15%. The source of your information is unreliable. StephenB

Of related note, here is what a mathematician said about embryonic development:

Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - Casey Luskin - March 22, 2012 Excerpt: "The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity." - Alexander Tsiaras http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a057741.html Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth — visualized – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70

Dr. Tsiaras was not exaggerating in the least. In the following article, Stephen Talbott, (in a article regular readers of UD are probably tired of me repeatedly citing), gives us a small glimpse of the 'divinity' involved in embryonic development, and of the insurmountable problem that that 'divine' development presents to Darwinian explanations:

HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling... and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)",,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

Quote, Verse and Music:

“Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.” CS Lewis – Mere Christianity Psalm 139: 13-14 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. David Crowder*Band - Everything Glorious - music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81dK2Vu1IUs

bornagain77

Axel: Though no scientist You can only claim that by ignoring Darwin's record of scientific publication. Darwin's work on barnacles established him as a persistent and systematic scientific observer. His work on phototropism and the fertilization of orchids was of great interest to other scientists. His book on earthworms, published late in his life, revolutionized gardening. See @33 for more details. Dr JDD: claimed 50% of embryos are spontaneously aborted in nature.

Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm

Zachriel

Dr JDD- Spontaneous abortions exist but to me they show how big of a miracle each life is. Developmental biology confirms Intelligent Design but genetic entropy, plus poor lifestyles are like wrenches in the gears. Virgil Cain

I stopped paying attention to anything Zachriel said after he claimed 50% of embryos are spontaneously aborted in nature. Dr JDD

A risible claim for all that, Zack. Darwin was the atheists' dream, and he grew to love all the bullsh*t they generated around his ramblings. Though no scientist, dropping out of medical school, and poor at maths (not Higher Maths, as far as we know, either), what was epic about his 'historic adventure' in the Beagle was that he almost personified Rutherford's unscientific, 'stamp collector' He was another bumbling Mr Magoo, who like so many atheists, said he didn't believe in God, because He was horrible and had an inferior sense of morality to himself. A tantrum, a fit of petulance. Neo-Darwinism is all flim-flam, according to the actual, received canons of empirical science, but in this case, bullsh*t talks as well as money...... and truth walks. A sorry variant of the colloquial adage. Axel

asauber: This is mostly true, because as BA77 put it… “Darwinism is not even a science in any meaningful sense of the word ‘science’, but is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science!” The claim was that Darwin was already a foremost scientist when he published his theory of evolution, so pointing to any supposed flaws in the theory is irrelevant to the validity of the claim. Zachriel

"In any case, you ignored the other 2983 characters" This is mostly true, because as BA77 put it... "Darwinism is not even a science in any meaningful sense of the word ‘science’, but is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science!" ! Andrew asauber

Zachriel, contrary to your obfuscation of the matter, Darwin IS NOT, and NEVER WILL BE a leading scientist. Darwin was, first and foremost, a horrid theologian whose pseudo-scientific ramblings have cost biological science and society dearly for the negative harm they have caused. If anything, when history is finally written, Darwin will be remembered as one of the worst charlatans of pseudo-science ever. bornagain77

asauber: I don’t find your use of exclamation points very persuasive Exclamation point, singular. And the exclamation was certainly justified due to the historic nature of the expedition. In any case, you ignored the other 2983 characters, presumably because you have no argument concerning Darwin's contributions before 'Origin of Species'. Silver Asiatic: He saw examples of imperfection and he felt that helped support his argument. Just to be clear, the cat argument is not part of any scientific publication, but a discussion by letter with Asa Gray on a point of theology. bornagain77: For Darwin to be considered a leading scientist of his day, such as say Maxwell or Faraday are rightly considered to be, Darwin would have needed to develop his theory with a rigorous experimental and/or mathematical foundation. Learn to read, bornagain77. The comment concerned Darwin's reputation before 'Origin of Species', which is more than supported by his list of published findings provided above. Zachriel

“You do realize that up to half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion?” Well thus far, as far as I know, %100 of people die at some point. Perhaps you'd like to legalize murder to speed up the process? beau

For Darwin to be considered a leading scientist of his day, such as say Maxwell or Faraday are rightly considered to be, Darwin would have needed to develop his theory with a rigorous experimental and/or mathematical foundation. Darwin certainly did not provide such a rigorous experimental and/or mathematical foundation for his theory in his day, nor is there any rigorous experimental and/or mathematical foundation to be found for his theory to this day. In fact, in so far as math can be rigorously applied to Darwinian claims, Darwinism is falsified in its claims.

HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=7 Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ See also Mendel's Accountant and Haldane's Ratchet: John Sanford

As well, the empirical evidence consistently shows us that the Darwinian claims for how species originated are grossly contrary to the empirical evidence. Much less is there any actual empirical evidence that entirely new species originated in such a 'unguided' manner.

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282

Thus, without any substantiating mathematical or empirical basis, (in fact Darwinism contradicts our mathematical and experimental evidence), then Darwinism is not even a science in any meaningful sense of the word 'science', but is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science! bornagain77

'Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has thus far been a sterile dead-end.' You mean like the fiasco reverse-engineering has proved, Zack? They're still persevering with it, still banging away. Axel

Darwin never found any support for his claim that natural selection can produce design without a designer. "On the Origins of Species" never discussed the origin of species! Virgil Cain

Zach

Certainly, a cat torturing its prey is natural, but something that Darwin saw as far from perfection in any absolute sense of the word.

Yes, that's basically the point. He saw examples of imperfection and he felt that helped support his argument. In other words, if God was truly involved, there wouldn't be that kind of imperfection and suffering in nature, as he saw it. Therefore, he argued for an unguided material process. Silver Asiatic

"Perhaps you forgot that Darwin made an historic voyage around the world collecting evidence nearly thirty years before he published Origin of Species — one of the greatest scientific adventures of all times!" I don't find your use of exclamation points very persuasive, Zach. This isn't a Seinfeld (great show) episode. Andrew asauber

Zachriel: Darwin was a already a foremost scientist of his day bornagain77: That claim is a lie. Other leading scientists of Darwin’s day mocked Darwin for his ‘unscientific’ theory Even if so, that doesn't mean Darwin wasn't already a leading scientist. He read his initial paper before the Linnean Society. asauber: hero worship.

Perhaps you forgot that Darwin made an historic voyage around the world collecting evidence nearly thirty years before he published Origin of Species — one of the greatest scientific adventures of all times! Then he spent years collecting and publishing additional evidence to support and develop his nascent theory, long before he was willing to put the theory before his peers. Darwin's incremental approach allowed him to build and refine his argument, on a solid evidentiary basis. Darwin's intensive, multi-year study of barnacles was sufficient to establish his reputation among scientists, while his study of earthworms was sufficient to establish his public reputation; and the sheer volume of his scientific studies, including observations of moths, orchids, bees, beetles, coral reefs, as well as related studies of geology, made him one of the most important scientists of his age even without including Origin of Species. Here is a list of Darwin's primary scientific output: * The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle * Natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle * The Breeding of Animals * The structure and distribution of coral reefs. * Fertilisation of British orchids by insect agency * On the agency of bees in the fertilisation of papilionaceous flowers As well as published observations on living and fossil Cirripedia, animal intelligence, insectivorous plants; cross breeding hybrid dianths; the effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom; the different forms of flowers on plants of the same species; the effect of seawater on seeds; mouse-coloured breed of ponies; bees and the fertilisation of kidney beans; cross-breeds of strawberries; flowers and their unbidden guests; the power of movement in plants; the formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms; nectar-secreting organs of plants, Rhea americana, Chiasognathus Grantii, Carabus, Geospiza, Camarhynchus, Cactornis and Certhidea, Sagitta, planaria; Lizard's eggs; observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili; the geology of the Falkland Islands; on certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations; on the connexion of certain volcanic phenomena, and on the formation of mountain-chains and volcanoes, as the effects of continental elevations; vincas, frogs, rates, geese, butterflies, teasel, ants, holly berries and their bees, primrose, black sheep, mosquitoes, cherry blossoms, gladioli, penguin ducks, fumariaceae, influence of pollen on the appearance of seed, etc. Without the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was one of the greatest empirical scientists of his age. With the Theory of Evolution, he revolutionized biology, a revolution which is still spawning entire new areas of research today. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has thus far been a sterile dead-end.

Zachriel

“Darwin was a already a foremost scientist of his day” Juvenile hero worship. I mean, why not erase him and make yourself the King of Evolution? What's it going to matter? Who's it going to matter to? He was just a clump of cells, right? Andrew asauber

Zachriel states: "Darwin was a already a foremost scientist of his day" That claim is a lie. Other leading scientists of Darwin's day mocked Darwin for his 'unscientific' theory: Anti-Science Irony Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/ Someone tries telling the truth: Darwin wasn’t that great but he met an elite need - July 29, 2014 Excerpt: , he (Charles Darwin) devoted almost every bit of his magnum opus (Origin Of Species) to tedious examples of artificial selection in domestic animals. He brushed away the glaring advantage of artificial over natural selection with rhetoric along the lines of “I see no reason why” natural selection might not have fashioned the eye or any other organ or living thing. For such schoolboy ineptitude he was roundly criticized by his contemporaries, all of whom are now consigned to history’s dustbin, regardless of their skills and biological competency. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/someone-tries-telling-the-truth-darwin-wasnt-that-great-but-he-met-an-elite-need/ An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 22, 2012 Excerpt: "Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?" (Sedgwick to Darwin - 1859),,, And anticipating the fixity-of-species strawman, Sedgwick explained to the Sage of Kent (Darwin) that he had conflated the observable fact of change of time (development) with the explanation of how it came about. Everyone agreed on development, but the key question of its causes and mechanisms remained. Darwin had used the former as a sort of proof of a particular explanation for the latter. “We all admit development as a fact of history;” explained Sedgwick, “but how came it about?”,,, For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.” The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-early-critique-of-darwin-warned-of.html SKEPTICS OF DARWINIAN THEORY Sedgwick to Darwin "...I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous." Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) - one of the founders of modern geology. - The Spectator, 1860 http://veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/critics.html Here is the letter from Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin: Sedgwick, Adam to Darwin - 24 Nov 1859 Excerpt: There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.,, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2548 In fact, Darwin, besides not being a great scientist, said that he found mathematics to be ‘repugnant’ “During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as completely as at Edinburgh & at school. I attempted mathematics, & even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra.” Charles Darwin, 1887 – Recollections of the Development of my Mind & Character, the work which Darwin himself referred to as his autobiography bornagain77

bornagain77: Well actually Charles Darwin earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Theology in 1831. That doesn't make one a theologian, though he certainly was aware of the theological view of creation. bornagain77: In fact Darwin’s book ‘Origin of Species’, (as with evolutionary books of today), is rife with bad theological argumentation and not with any substantiating mathematical or experimental basis Darwin was a already a foremost scientist of his day when he published 'Origin of Species', and his circumnavigation of the world, one of the great scientific expeditions of all time, resulted in a huge treasure trove of science. 'Origin of Species' is chock full of evidence, from many different fields of study. Zachriel

Silver Asiatic: He expected some kind of perfection on earth. Don't see that in a cursory look at the article. Certainly, a cat torturing its prey is natural, but something that Darwin saw as far from perfection in any absolute sense of the word. Zachriel

"Darwin was not a theologian" Well actually Charles Darwin earned his Bachelor's Degree in Theology in 1831. In fact Darwin's book 'Origin of Species', (as with evolutionary books of today), is rife with bad theological argumentation and not with any substantiating mathematical or experimental basis: Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X Moreover, since Darwin's book ‘Origin of Species’, besides being bad science, is also rife with bad theology, it is not surprising that the liberal ‘unscientific’ clergy of Darwin’s day were very eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning, whilst the ‘scientific’ clergy shunned it: “Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_On_the_Origin_of_Species The Descent of Darwin (The Theodicy of Darwinism) - Pastor Joe Boot - video - 16:30 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996 bornagain77

Darwin's theological views informed his theory. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html He expected some kind of perfection on earth. He supported his theory with theological views which countered the religious ideas common in his church at the time. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic: Spectacular engineering is part of great beauty. Sure, but that wasn't the question. Silver Asiatic: Can you suggest something that is a greater masterpiece of engineering than a human being? Not sure if "engineering" is the correct term to describe organisms, but given a broad definition, while humans are rather fragile in many ways, your point of comparison has some validity. bornagain77: Darwinian theology is based on the presumption that we should already be in heaven and that everything should be perfect and that we do not live in a fallen world. That makes no sense at all. Darwin was not a theologian, and his theory concerns competitive adaptation, not perfection. Zachriel

"deciding who, according to their own perverse, personal prejudices, is good enough to live and who isn’t" And in the throes of their perversity, who never was. Andrew asauber

harry and this also: Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope hath the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. i.e. Darwinian theology is based on the presumption that we should already be in heaven and that everything should be perfect and that we do not live in a fallen world. As CS Lewis put it: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity bornagain77

Zach

If the claim about being a “spectacular masterpiece” was merely aesthetic, then our question wouldn’t be pertinent, but the term “engineering” implies something more.

Spectacular engineering is part of great beauty. The fact that all humans die does not take away from the marvels of engineering we can observe in them. Can you suggest something that is a greater masterpiece of engineering than a human being? Silver Asiatic

bornagain77 @20

Dr. John Avise used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental ... as a theological argument for Darwinism since, according to the twisted theology of Darwinian reasoning, God would never allow such things as detrimental mutations.

Darwinists are as ignorant of theology as they are of everything else:

Moses said to Yahweh, 'But, my Lord, never in my life have I been a man of eloquence, either before or since you have spoken to your servant. I am a slow speaker and not able to speak well.' Yahweh answered him, 'Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him dumb or deaf, gives him sight or leaves him blind? Is it not I, Yahweh?' --Exodus 4:10-11 As he went along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, for him to have been born blind?' 'Neither he nor his parents sinned,' Jesus answered 'he was born blind so that the works of God might be displayed in him.' --John 9:1-3

Here is the thing the Zachriels of this world just don't get: God knows what He is doing. And if they don't believe there is a God, they should realize that they are certainly not God, either. Yet they presumptuously take it upon themselves to play God, deciding who, according to their own perverse, personal prejudices, is good enough to live and who isn't. harry

Jon Garvey: Never quite understood this as a moral-theological argument when I was in medical practice. Our question concerned a comment about engineering, not morality. Jon Garvey: It has been believed for a good half-century, and evidence confirms, that early miscarriage is a screening process for grossly abnormal conceptions that are incompatible with life. It means that the human replication rate is significantly higher than live births. Zachriel

Silver Asiatic: great beauty also because it exists for a reason and purpose. If the claim about being a "spectacular masterpiece" was merely aesthetic, then our question wouldn't be pertinent, but the term "engineering" implies something more. harry: If God’s intention was to call a human being into existence and then call this innocent child of God back to Himself, that is not a failure. Presumably, the claim about being a "engineering" entails some objective criteria. Your response, however, is strictly theological. Zachriel

Zachriel asks "You do realize that up to half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion?" And if Zach were concerned with the actual science at hand instead of primarily concerned with spreading his Darwinian theology no matter what, he may have realized that the pattern in which spontaneous abortions happen is very powerful evidence against Darwinian evolution being true. In the following video, Dr. Nelson points out that in order Darwinian evolution to be viable as a theory then, 'to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring':

Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

In fact, developmental biologist Eric Davidson states that the consequences of mutating a subcircuit of the dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network), which is involved in orchestrating embryonic developement, is "always catastrophically bad"

A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html

And just as Paul Nelson and Eric Davidson have pointed out, we find that there is a much higher percentage of embryonic miscarriages in early development than in later development:

Embryo Miscarriage Studies using very sensitive early pregnancy tests have found that 25% of embryos are aborted by the sixth week LMP (since the woman's last menstrual period), even if a woman does not realize it.[9][10] Abortions after the sixth week LMP happen in 8% of pregnancies.[10] The risk of them is "virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period," with a rate of only two percent after 8.5 weeks LMP.[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo#Miscarriage

In fact, in the twisted world of Darwinian reasoning, Dr. John Avise used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental, which is actually a very powerful scientific argument against the claims of Darwinian evolution being true, as a theological argument for Darwinism since, according to the twisted theology of Darwinian reasoning, God would never allow such things as detrimental mutations:

It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012 Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]” – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome: A Case For Non-Intelligent Design” (Dr. Cornelius Hunter goes on to comment) "There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way." – http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.” John C. Avise - Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57

I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:

Mutation total (as of June 27, 2015) - 166,768 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/

Regardless to what Dr. Avise, and other neo-Darwinists, may believe theologically, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is NOT a point of scientific evidence in favor of Darwinism! In fact, it is a very powerful scientific argument against Darwinian claims,,,

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

That this fact, (such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is very powerful, and falsifying, evidence against Darwinian claims), would even have to be pointed out to Darwinists is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian theology truly is in regards to the actual science at hand. As Dr Hunter points out, 'religion drives science and it matters'.

Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html

bornagain77

But your claim was that “from conception, every human being is a spectacular masterpiece of divine engineering”, which doesn’t seem consistent with a 50% failure rate.

Genetic entropy from a once very good design. Virgil Cain

Zachriel, like the rest of those of his cult, has to maintain the acceptability of mass-murder of unborn children... crushing them alive as they are ripped from the womb. "It's not a person, it's not a person, it's not a person." They must keep chanting this mantra to themselves in order to silence whatever remains of their conscience. Don't fool yourself into thinking these people can be reasoned with. Their hearts are hardened. They know the personal horror that will come with the realization that they've been casually advocating for the slaughter of millions of unborn babies... crushing and ripping them apart, separating out the organs... "It's not a person, it's not a person, it's not a person!" Zachriel, you will have no excuse. lifepsy

Zachriel: "You do realize that up to half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion?" Never quite understood this as a moral-theological argument when I was in medical practice. It depends entirely on rhetoric, and not at all on logic. At its most basic "Because the Lord gives and takes away life as its Creator, it is equally OK for men to give and take away." By the same logic, since all people die, all people may be morally be killed for any reason. But one should perhaps be a little more scientifically precise. It has been believed for a good half-century, and evidence confirms, that early miscarriage is a screening process for grossly abnormal conceptions that are incompatible with life. For example: "... a recent study using comparative genomic hybridization to study the chromosomal complement of all blastomeres in preimplantation [ie aborted] human embryos, more than 90% were found to have at least one chromosomal abnormality in one or more cells". So your moral-theological argument actually goes as follows: "Because nature and/or God prevents abnormal conceptions from proceeding to term, it follows that humans are morally entitled to prevent normal conceptions proceeding to term." Can you tell me why that conclusion is valid? Jon Garvey

Zachriel @12

your claim was that “from conception, every human being is a spectacular masterpiece of divine engineering”, which doesn’t seem consistent with a 50% failure rate.

If God's intention was to call a human being into existence and then call this innocent child of God back to Himself, that is not a failure. The glaring, inexcusable, immoral failure is mere mortals deliberately taking the lives of the innocent children of God. Do you think it is wrong that children are routinely murdered in the U.S. who are older and more viable than many patients routinely cared for in modern newborn intensive care units? Each time that happens is a 100% failure rate of morality and rationality. harry

Perhaps another way to say the same excellent concept: “from conception, every human being is a spectacular masterpiece of divine beauty” Death of the embryo is part of the drama of human life - a drama which includes some amount of tragedy, which has great beauty also because it exists for a reason and purpose. Silver Asiatic

harry: Human life belongs to God. Zachriel: Perhaps. I guess you'll be applying the Precautionary Principle to this situation, eh Zach? Andrew asauber

harry: Human life belongs to God. Perhaps. But your claim was that "from conception, every human being is a spectacular masterpiece of divine engineering", which doesn't seem consistent with a 50% failure rate. Zachriel

Zachriel @3

You do realize that up to half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion?

Human life belongs to God. We are His to call into being and His to call back to Himself whenever He pleases. As common sense and the most basic morality informs us, human life is not ours to destroy. As God put it, using all small words so even Supreme Court justices could understand it: "Thou shalt not kill."

The ancient inhabitants of your holy land you hated for their loathsome practices ... hated as ruthless murderers of children ... as murderous parents of defenceless beings. --Wisdom 12:3-6

harry

"Can any of your neighbors tell, Kate?" My name isn't Kate. Andrew asauber

asauber: Right on cue.

Can any of your neighbors tell, Kate? I'll ask them. http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Path=shakespeare/histories/kinghenryv/v_ii//&Word=understand+thus+much+english,+canst+thou+love+me#w

Zachriel

"We admit our ignorance" Why do you use 'we'? Are you more than one person? Adrew asauber

asauber: Right on cue. We admit our ignorance, but you failed to answer. Zachriel

Zachriel: "How is it news?" Right on cue. It almost like you have programmed/canned responses Zach. Andrew asauber

asauber: I had an exchange about this story with some people yesterday who wondered, “how is this news?” How is it news? Haven't you heard of embryonic stem cells? Organ and tissue donation? Zachriel

I had an exchange about this story with some people yesterday who wondered, "how is this news?" I wondered when and how these people lost their ability to think. Anything that doesn't fit the narrative doesn't exist. Andrew asauber

harry: From conception, every human being is a spectacular masterpiece of divine engineering You do realize that up to half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion? Zachriel

Let me add that it is just as wrong to take the life of any and every innocent human being from the moment of his or her conception as it is to take the lives of those who are already -- visibly -- beautiful children. From conception, every human being is a spectacular masterpiece of divine engineering, one that is much farther beyond anything modern science knows how to build from scratch than the farthest reaches of the Universe are beyond planet Earth. From conception one is a beautiful child in God's eyes, one He has already loved passionately unto a horrific death on a cross. harry

You will have to scroll down a little, but take a look at Lennart Nilsson's photograph of an unborn child at 16 weeks that appeared on the cover of LIFE magazine in 1965: http://time.com/3876085/drama-of-life-before-birth-landmark-work-five-decades-later A beautiful child. Take a long, hard look at it. Then take a look at the Guttmacher Institute's own statistics on abortion rates at various stages of pregnancy here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html You will find that 11 percent of abortions take place at 16 weeks or later. Now, consider that the NRLC estimates that there have been 54,559,615 abortions since the Supreme Court abruptly withdrew the protection of law from the child in the womb in 1973. Applying the 11 percent rate to that number, you will find that over 6,000,000 beautiful children like the one who appeared on the cover of Life magazine have been brutally murdered in the United States. Apparently money is being made off of their body parts. Does anyone really think America will escape the wrath of God for this? It is time for us to reconsider Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. An excerpt:

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

What will be the price America will eventually pay for every drop of childrens' blood drawn "legally" since Roe? harry