|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 03/09/2006 : 19:06:47 [Permalink]
|
Robb said:
quote:
Can you respond to this post of mine? Why is my reponse arbitray? It does not fit the definition I sourced.
Because your position lacks any basis in evidence and also lacks a rational argument for why it should be accepted as the begining of human life.
quote:
arbitrary:
based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
When you can demonstrate that "human life begins at _conception_" is intrinsic to the definition of human life, your position will become non-arbitrary. (first you need a solid definition of life, and human life. Good luck with that.)
Until then you are doing nothing more than repeating an unevidenced assertion (your opinion) on when human life begins.
Without appropriate evidence and rational explanation your opinion (as with anyone's opinion) is always arbitrary.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 19:13:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) More arbitrary dogma from the atheist camp I see. The have nothing on the origin of matter and the universe, nothing on how this matter in this universe then became life, and a bunch of justso stories mixed in with wild imagination for the origin of the species from the said life, which came from the matter that they have no idea how it got there to begin with. They will inject admitted speculation to trump well established theory just because and yet they profess to only dabble in science? Very strange creatures these atheists???….
quote:
(bill) Good, then maybe they can point me to where all the millions and millions of fossils showing raptors/birds, wolf/whales and monkey/men that would be required for molecules to man evolution would be stored.
quote:
(bill) What evidence? The fossil record is an embarrassment to the macro crowd. The theories on speculative natural selection mechanics push the limits of probability to the breaking point. Not to mention they have no idea how the matter became life to begin with or where the matter even came from, yet they want to preach this philosophy in the public school under the guise of "science" even though a majority of the tax paying parents reject their arbitrary worldview out right.
There is no shame in ignorance. However, when one is given the means and opportunity to educate oneself, yet refuses, that is wilful ignorance. You, Bill, are guilty of willful ignorance in the first degree. You have demonstrated that despite the many resources that have been provided you here, what you know of science, particularly as it relates to the evolution of life on earth, could fit in a very small thimble. And that is a shame. Please, if not for your own sake, but for that of your daughter, wake up and learn a few things about science and critical thinking. Please don't pass this on to another generation. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 19:59:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Robb said:
quote:
Can you respond to this post of mine? Why is my reponse arbitray? It does not fit the definition I sourced.
Because your position lacks any basis in evidence and also lacks a rational argument for why it should be accepted as the begining of human life.
quote:
arbitrary:
based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
When you can demonstrate that "human life begins at _conception_" is intrinsic to the definition of human life, your position will become non-arbitrary. (first you need a solid definition of life, and human life. Good luck with that.)
Until then you are doing nothing more than repeating an unevidenced assertion (your opinion) on when human life begins.
Without appropriate evidence and rational explanation your opinion (as with anyone's opinion) is always arbitrary.
I have already stated that I do not know when life begins. That is my point. If we donot know when life begins then we need to define it at fertilization. It is clear that life cannot grow into a human before fertilization. To be safe and ensure that we do not terminate human life we should not allow abortions.
I have a reason to define life at fertilization that you have not addressed. My descision is not arbitrary if you follow the definition in most dictionaries. All you keep saying is that it is arbitrary without adressing my reason. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 20:28:21 [Permalink]
|
Robb said:
quote:
It is clear that life cannot grow into a human before fertilization.
It is?
Perhaps you are unaware of the thousands of cloned mice out there, the cloned dogs, cats, sheep, cows.... It hasn't been publicly done with a human, yet, but the proof that it is well within our ability to do so is out there.
Somatic cell nuclear transfer doesn't involve fertilization at all.
quote:
If we donot know when life begins then we need to define it at fertilization.
And there is exactly why your position is arbitrary. You don't know when life begins, so your just going with some point you like. Actually, I'll go out on a limb here and say that you are going with a point that somebody else told you life begins.
quote:
To be safe and ensure that we do not terminate human life we should not allow abortions.
Then we should not let people smoke, drive cars, eat greasy food, walk down stairs, do any strenuous work, watch TV, own guns, swim, own sharp objects, skydive, ride motorcycles, scuba dive, rock climb, ski, ice fish, cross streets, hike in the woods, drink alcohol, take any medication, join the military, get on airplanes, .....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 20:33:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Robb:
I have already stated that I do not know when life begins. That is my point. If we donot know when life begins then we need to define it at fertilization.
So, are you saying that before the egg even starts dividing it's a human? Or is that any potential human must be regarded as human, even though it's plan to see that it isn't human yet? Forget whether it's life unless you are also a practicing vegan…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 21:07:38 [Permalink]
|
marfknox:
quote:
quote:
verso wrote:
quote:
With my premise - personhood begins at fertilization - if you can't handle the responsibility of raising a child, then you'd better not create a situation where killing it is the best option.
So are you admitting that abortion is the best option in such a situation? Because, let's face it, even if we made premarital sex illegal, unwanted pregnancies would still be rampant.
No. The intent of that statement was: if you can't take on the responsibility of raising a child, then you'd better not create a situation where you believe the best option is to kill it.
To clarify my position: The only time abortion should be permissible is when the mothers life is at risk, and only after best effort has been made to save both lives.
quote:
Also, your “keep your pants on” line is so impractical and arcane. Think about it – married people don't always want kids/more kids. I'm married, we don't want a kid, and if I got pregnant, I'd get an abortion. It is absurd to expect all adults who do not want children to simply refrain from having sex.
I know, it's ridiculous. But compared to the ridiculousness of killing the child you created because you don't feel you can take up the responsibility - is even more ridiculous.
quote:
Because an unborn child is a parasite on the mother, therefore the mother's right must also be taken into consideration. Since there is nothing ambiguous about her personhood, and since our society gives people rights over what happens to their body, her unambiguously-based rights trump the unborn's.
How many parasites are created by their hosts?
This entity is not some invader - it is a person that the woman took responsibility for when she had sex.
Second - to me there is nothing ambiguous about the embryo's personhood - and that person's right to life outweighs the mothers right to not have the child.
quote:
The vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester – before the embryo's senses or brain functions have started functioning. And less than 1% are done in the third semester (and seeing as over 30 states have third trimester bans, most of those 1% abortions are probably being done to save the mother from death or permanent injury) I don't know why pro-lifers are so keen on waving around partial-birth abortion photos.
Sarcastic rhetoric aside - we both know why both "parties" are so keen on using those rare cases - they are emotionally charged situations, and each side is guilty of trying to exploit that charge.
My response to Wendy's question on that subject was meant to conclude the tangent, as it does not address the root question, and I'd rather not spend anymore time on it.
quote:
If you truly marked full personhood at conception, you would not hesitate at this question. Obviously even you are viewing a embryo differently than a newborn baby.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 21:34:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
quote:
Because an unborn child is a parasite on the mother, therefore the mother's right must also be taken into consideration. Since there is nothing ambiguous about her personhood, and since our society gives people rights over what happens to their body, her unambiguously-based rights trump the unborn's.
How many parasites are created by their hosts?
This entity is not some invader - it is a person that the woman took responsibility for when she had sex.
Analogously, if you happen to get a tapeworm while vacationing in the tropics, then that parasite is a life that you took responsibility for when you went on vacation. It may not be human, but it's still alive.
In other words, I see very little difference, given your logic, between a tapeworm and a human zygote. They are both the result of known-to-be-risky activitites that the participants willingly engaged in. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 21:58:04 [Permalink]
|
okay this topic seems to have gotten away from me so I will try to make up for lost time.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(bill) Sort of like when arbitrary evolutionary dogma, which you believe in, is imposed on unbelievers of said dogma by the government, through public schools using tax dollars to promote a philosophical worldview that many of the students and their parents fully reject. Of course Dude is fine with this arbitrary belief of his being force fed to others because he will make the arbitrary statement that he has concluded that evolution is science itself. *sigh*
quote:
Bill, evolution is fact whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
(bill) More arbitrary dogma from the atheist camp I see. The have nothing on the origin of matter and the universe, nothing on how this matter in this universe then became life, and a bunch of justso stories mixed in with wild imagination for the origin of the species from the said life, which came from the matter that they have no idea how it got there to begin with. They will inject admitted speculation to trump well established theory just because and yet they profess to only dabble in science? Very strange creatures these atheists???….
hee hee
reading this is like watching those taco John commercials with the monkey riding the dog. it's funny but also depressing.
all I want to comment on is the phrase "atheist camp"...
... I see a war party camped in a windstorm on the desolate plains. inside the largest tent the leaders are meeting. a map is unfurled on the central table. the general speaks:
"Okay boys and girls, tomorrow you move out. Alpha team take the left flank, try to take all the innocent children out with you. Beta team, you've got right flank. take down the morals of their society. the rest of us go straight in. without god on our side we can win this thing! |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 22:13:29 [Permalink]
|
have not finished yet, but I gotta post this...
quote:
quote:
Argh! The amount of ignorance in this paragraph is astounding! Bill, the major proponents of Intelligent Design theory (Michael Behe and William Dembski) admit that macroevolution and common descent took place.
(bill) Good, then maybe they can point me to where all the millions and millions of fossils showing raptors/birds, wolf/whales and monkey/men that would be required for molecules to man evolution would be stored.
bolding mine.
look here
Bill
or here |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 08:32:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
verso wrote: quote:
With my premise - personhood begins at fertilization - if you can't handle the responsibility of raising a child, then you'd better not create a situation where killing it is the best option.
So are you admitting that abortion is the best option in such a situation? Because, let's face it, even if we made premarital sex illegal, unwanted pregnancies would still be rampant.
Also, your “keep your pants on” line is so impractical and arcane. Think about it – married people don't always want kids/more kids. I'm married, we don't want a kid, and if I got pregnant, I'd get an abortion. It is absurd to expect all adults who do not want children to simply refrain from having sex.
quote:
With your premise - personhood doesn't begin till some point later on - abortion is perfectly moral birth control.
So, I'll ask you, as I've asked Dude:
Why should you be able to impose your arbitary definition of life on an unborn child?
Because an unborn child is a parasite on the mother, therefore the mother's right must also be taken into consideration. Since there is nothing ambiguous about her personhood, and since our society gives people rights over what happens to their body, her unambiguously-based rights trump the unborn's.
quote:
About .9% of the annual total of abortions are due to rape. It's such a small segment - I don't know why you all are so keen on bringing it up.
The vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester – before the embryo's senses or brain functions have started functioning. And less than 1% are done in the third semester (and seeing as over 30 states have third trimester bans, most of those 1% abortions are probably being done to save the mother from death or permanent injury) I don't know why pro-lifers are so keen on waving around partial-birth abortion photos.
quote:
I will say - that is a very difficult situation, one I can't imagine having to deal with. But no matter how you cut it, I don't believe taking an innocent life is the answer.
If you truly marked full personhood at conception, you would not hesitate at this question. Obviously even you are viewing a embryo differently than a newborn baby.
Why is it so unreasonable to put the line in the grey area. Given the biology of a zygote and embryo, and even a young fetus, doesn't conception seem like a silly place to mark the beginning of personhood?
quote:
So are you admitting that abortion is the best option in such a situation? Because, let's face it, even if we made premarital sex illegal, unwanted pregnancies would still be rampant.
(bill) I gathered that his point was pregnancy is a result of sexual intimacy. We all know this. It is not a big shock to most when told that heterosexual activity can lead to pregna |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 08:41:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
verso said:
quote:
No, RvW does not "make people have abortions." RvW allows a person to impose death on another innocent person.
With my premise, legal abortion is legal homicide.
And we are right back to my first question to you, which you have yet to answer. (your refusal to even try to answer is noted, again)
Define human life, define where it begins, and rationally explain why your position is non-arbitrary. In order to impose restrictions on the rights of other people(in this case a woman's right to determine the use to which her own body is put), and have anyone other than your fellow religiously insane on your side, you must be able to make that argument.
In order to provide you with some perspective on just where overall opinion is on abortion:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Even the FOX poll has pro-choice as the majority.
The reason why the big majority favor abortion rights for women is because nobody on your side can answer the question I have asked of you.
You could swing public opinion and gather a concensus on this issue if you had a rational answer. Instead all you have is your repetition of your arbitrary opinion and your assertion that you are right.
quote:
With my premise, if you argue that criminalizing abortion is unjustly forcing beliefs on someone, then you must also argue that criminalizing homicide is unjustly forcing beliefs on someone.
No. Again, because you can't rationally defend your position beyond childishly repeating your arbitrary opinion and asserting that you are right.
You have to give us a rational reason why we should accept your premise before your analogy is anything but a ridiculous straw-man.
quote:
Bill hit that nail on the head:
The only thing Bill has hit on the head is himself.
quote:
And we are right back to my first question to you, which you have yet to answer. (your refusal to even try to answer is noted, again)
(bill) But yet you refuse to answer why you think you have the right to force your arbitatry view of personhood on the unborn child with a death sentence?
I tell you what, if I am on the jury and prosecutor is going for capital punishment I am going to have to see 100%, no shadow of a doubt, empirical evidence that the defendant did the crime or I can not vote guilty. The thought of sending an innocent man to the death chamber because I was pretty sure he was guilty is unacceptable and therefore I would have to acquit if there was doubt. I believe that is what the law says we have to do.
Yet dude is willing to wipe away "personhood at conception" with a wave of his arbitrary magic wand and then proclaim that "personhood does not begin at conception" because dude said so. After he comes to his speculative conclusion he is now ready to imply the death sentence on possible innocent human being in spite of the fact that he can not prove anything beyond his speculation and arbitrary opinion. Dude, you will never make a jury with your willingness to pass down capital punishment on a possible innocent human being based of your speculation and your arbitrary opinion.
quote:
In order to provide you with some perspective on just where overall opinion is on abortion:
<http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm><http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm>
Even the FOX poll has pro-choice as the majority.
(bill) Did you not learn a thing from 2004? All the polls Tuesday morning had JFK winning the election. All the poles showed gay marriage passing in Oregon and maybe Mich. We found out Tuesday night that all the polls don't mean squat and the only true polls are the ones where we all go to vote at.
Besides your already dismissed "majority rules" in the gay marriage debate.
quote:
The reason why the big majority favor abortion rights for women is because nobody on your side can answer the question I have asked of you.
(bill) We answered your question many times. You just choose to keep regurgitating it.
quote:
You could swing public opinion and gather a concensus on this issue if you had a rational answer. Instead all you have is your repetition of your arbitrary opinion and your assertion that you are right.
(bill) But that is what I told you in the gay marriage debate and you lectured me how the law "was not a popularity contest." Yet another example of dude flip flopping to suit his own agenda.
quote:
You have to give us a rational reason why we should accept your premise before your analogy is anything but a ridiculous straw-man.
(bill) But yet you have to do the same on your arbitrary view of personhood when invoking the death sentence on a possible innocent human being with your speculation. God forbid if I ever have to go on trail for anything I am instructing my lawyer to kick dude out of the jury pool so fast it would make is head spin.
quote:
The only thing Bill has hit on the head is himself.
(bill) The mold was broken when you reached personhood, dude. The deity, or NS, decided one of you was enough. To quote one of the founding fathers themselves Kil: "you are a classic"
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 08:47:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by verso
quote:
Because an unborn child is a parasite on the mother, therefore the mother's right must also be taken into consideration. Since there is nothing ambiguous about her personhood, and since our society gives people rights over what happens to their body, her unambiguously-based rights trump the unborn's.
How many parasites are created by their hosts?
This entity is not some invader - it is a person that the woman took responsibility for when she had sex.
Analogously, if you happen to get a tapeworm while vacationing in the tropics, then that parasite is a life that you took responsibility for when you went on vacation. It may not be human, but it's still alive.
In other words, I see very little difference, given your logic, between a tapeworm and a human zygote. They are both the result of known-to-be-risky activitites that the participants willingly engaged in.
(bill) Yes, but one small minor difference you choose to ignore, the tapeworm is a foreign invader. The baby is flesh of the women's flesh and bone of her bone and was the result of sexual relations, which was the obvious intended procreation mechanism of the deity or NS, take you pick.
Now please tell me again how a tick jumping out of a tree and attaching itself to my head has anything at all to do with the reproduction process of a women put in place by the deity, or NS, take your pick?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 03/10/2006 08:59:33 |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 09:21:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Now please tell me again how a tick jumping out of a tree and attaching itself to my head has anything at all to do with the reproduction process of a women put in place by the deity, or NS, take your pick?
Dave answered that question. You even included his answer in your subsequent post. Here it is again:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
In other words, I see very little difference, given your logic, between a tapeworm and a human zygote. They are both the result of known-to-be-risky activitites that the participants willingly engaged in.
For those who have cancer, it is flesh of their flesh. Should they let it live? No, of course not. Now, while pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother are the exception and not the rule, suppose it is your wife, your mother, your sister, or your daughter, faced with a life-threatening pregnancy. Whose life do you save?
Suppose one of those women is raped. Do you honestly expect her to deliver the child of such a man? Would you comfort her by telling her it is "flesh of her flesh"?
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 10:02:19 [Permalink]
|
You know what? And I realize that this is yet another example of my grasp of the obvious and probably doesn't really need to be said, but this is a religious argument, plain and simple. Bill, verso and Robb believe that a human soul may be residing in the glob of jelly. And that's that. There is certainly no reason to think it's human based on its physiology. Science be damned. It's human. To them there is more to the brainless voices calling out for protection, because a brainless voice is not possible. They are protecting a soul.
And so, they favor a repeal of Roe V Wade and are not the least bit concerned about how this brings us one step closer to the theocracy that they favor.
I'll give them this. They have the right to fight for laws that are more in line with their religious beliefs. But they must be fought because ultimately Filthy is correct in saying that they are the American Taliban. Personal freedom does not top their agenda and it never will. They are busy saving souls…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 10:07:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wendy
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Now please tell me again how a tick jumping out of a tree and attaching itself to my head has anything at all to do with the reproduction process of a women put in place by the deity, or NS, take your pick?
Dave answered that question. You even included his answer in your subsequent post. Here it is again:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
In other words, I see very little difference, given your logic, between a tapeworm and a human zygote. They are both the result of known-to-be-risky activitites that the participants willingly engaged in.
For those who have cancer, it is flesh of their flesh. Should they let it live? No, of course not. Now, while pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother are the exception and not the rule, suppose it is your wife, your mother, your sister, or your daughter, faced with a life-threatening pregnancy. Whose life do you save?
Suppose one of those women is raped. Do you honestly expect her to deliver the child of such a man? Would you comfort her by telling her it is "flesh of her flesh"?
quote:
For those who have cancer, it is flesh of their flesh. Should they let it live? No, of course not.
(bill) Of course not. The cancer is not a human being with any personhood, nor does it even have the potential to gain personhood with further growth and nobody even debates this. The baby is a human by my standards and a human being in waiting by yours. What does cancer have to do with being pregnant and the natural process of the women to carry the baby as the procreation mechanism set forth by the deity or NS? Answer: Nothing, it is just a way to try and muddy the initial point.
quote:
Now, while pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother are the exception and not the rule, suppose it is your wife, your mother, your sister, or your daughter, faced with a life-threatening pregnancy. Whose life do you save?
(bill) If the doctor said that it was beyond any hope, and that they can only save the life of the mother by aborting the baby then I have to elect for them to save the life of the mother.
quote:
Suppose one of those women is raped. Do you honestly expect her to deliver the child of such a man?
(bill) I believe I would, but of course I subscribe to the notion that two wrongs do not make a right. Killing an innocent human being for the crime of their unknown bio father is not justice, nor will it erase the pain from the rape to begin with. I suspect it might even extend it. Knowing the victim must deal with the rape and the lose of her unborn child at the same time. There are so many man/women couples who want to adopt right now that it is always another option as well
quote:
Would you comfort her by telling her it is "flesh of her flesh"?
(bill) Not after she just got done with aborting it, but I would tell her that before, when she was in the decision process of the whole thing.
Truly a nightmare scenario though that I hope none of us ever have to go through.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
