it comes down to compromise. setting the law to ban abortions around the point of viability seems like a sensible compromise.
Aye. I've always been satisfied with the compromise we reached, though as I stated elsewhere I don't think a baby is a human until knowledge of mortality is present.
you brought God into the debate. Not me. my opinions differ from the Church I attend. So you thesis that I am a bible thumper is quite wrong. I am a logic thumper. When you asked for a guess about God I gave it to you... but you can see even a guess about God is enough to bring whack jobs into the thread.
oh you mean logic like this? "God allows the potential for sin. when adam and eve broke lose from his protection, we were essentially cut off from the juice." where did you get a notion like that if not from the bible?
You stated you were taught God only created perfect things. So I gave you answer given the constructs you created. That is not even a belief I had prior to you asking the question. I do not know if adam and eve were once perfect and lived a long time. And that since the fall man was living shorter less perfect lives until medicine came a long. I know that is what some people have written so I gave you a possible answer. That answer has zero to do with my belief system. I was anwsering within your constructs. Obviously you do not understand debate. Stu was driven to come back from his precipice by my response to your question... and the funny thing is... that was a throw away answer just to illustrate one possibility. prior to your statement... I was never under the impression God only created perfect things.
Sustenance defined is a source of materials to nourish the body. Human life is not viable without sustenance. Parasites require sustenance. So, it's ok to terminate a fetus because it requires sustenance different from an adult?
Those delusions of God helping you decide yet again what it is I am to be driven back from, or by, before I even do anything? All religious so called answers are throw away, as you have most adequately demonstrated over a long time.
Just like your argument for multiple universes you popped in from out of nowhere just because free thinker asked a question about God. It does not take conversation with a Supreme being to know that up until the last month or two, if I wrote something about some type of God you were going to pop in and argue that there is no God. For instance when I write the next sentence you will magically pop in from your precipice... anyone who states they know there is no creator of the universe.... is illogical and emotional and creating throw away answers.
I popped in as you describe it because you were being particularly hypocritical while making accusations of hypocrisy about another, and you canât hardly get more hypocritical than that, or can you? Are you suggesting I shouldn't pop in? I made 3 responses directly to your own 3 hypocritical points. You have not, as usual, dealt with any of them. I have always argued that there are no reasons whatsoever to assume any God, and how all rationally based evidence that does exist, demonstrates a spectacular lacking and a complete unnecessariness for one anyway. You have always been incapable of discerning any difference between that , and categorical statements that there is no God , which by the way is equally valid with claims that there is a God. Itâs really you who mustn't understand the debate. Many times you have popped into threads out of the blue, sometimes in a laughable disguise as another alias trying to support you own silly comments. Often only to make some incoherent mumbling like here about how I make argument for multiple universes, which I never have, talking about abortion, when the thread is about animal welfare , making inaccurate and confused remarks about religion and some supernatural creator or other called God, then rather hypocritically again criticizing others for popping in to call out the nonsense you write. Rationalizing human moral standards and ethics based on sound practical grounds is no longer, thank goodness , about the answers the usually hysterical feelings and emotions that come from fantasies of an imaginary magisterial superior authority in the sky, which you clearly like to assume the right to bring up. But which are now remarkably more hypocritically⦠only your " possible answers "
Stu, your difficulty is that you, a prisoner of your worldview, must exclude emotional evidence, but most people do not. Science cannot meet all human needs. If it could we would not be having this debate.