• madstorm said on Sep 12, 2006....

  I agree completely with you... add in the abortion figures for the rest of the world and...
  
  4,500 children who die of starvation and disease everyday.
  
  3,000 people who commit suicide everyday.
  
  And this is just the beginning... there are no plaques, no days of commemoration or compensation payments for these people...
  
  The hypocrisy is worldwide...
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 12, 2006....

  First yes we need to educate people so that less abortions are required. More orphanages wouldn't really help the problem. Kids who grow up without parents are statiscally more likely to become part of the problem. So that doesn't work. Uh 9/11 was a single devestating event. Of course there are no plaques for people who starve, die of disease, old age, AIDS but we'll always remember D-Day.
  
  Its not that we don't care about the "children" aborted. Its that as or right now they are the lesser of two evils.
  

• bloc said on Sep 12, 2006....

  the difference is that many people don't consider an embryo a human being or a child. Therefore your argument isn't persuasive to us.
  
  I posed this question to seanrenaud before, and I'll ask you know. Let's say you run into a burning building to try and save someone. On one side of the building are 10 embryos and on the other side is an 8 year old girl. You can only save one or the other. Would you save the 8 year old girl or the 10 embryos?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 12, 2006....

  If I dodged this question earlier Bloc I apologize. I would save the 8 year old girl, she is alive and aware and has a DEFINITE future at this point.
  
  The question is kind of unfair though, I could throw a ton of science reasons why saving the embryos would be stupid. Mostly they are highly fragile and temprature sensitive and my "saving" them is unlikely to accomplish much.
  

• bloc said on Sep 12, 2006....

  i wasn't implying that you dodged it. I was just saying that i had asked it before :)
  
  Letas assume that all 10 would remain healthy. Would you still save the girl? She'll feel the fire burning her and will be aware of what is happening. The same can't be said of the embryos. I.e. I don't consider an embryo a human child.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 12, 2006....

  Neither do I. I would still make the same decision. But your question is nearly beside the point. A more accurate discription would be this.
  
  If saw 10 embryos and knew that if each one were to survive that it would cost you $10 a month for living expenses would you flush them down the toilet or save them?
  

• coollinux said on Sep 13, 2006....

  Have you ever heard about abortion spray?
  

• thenack said on Sep 13, 2006....

  bloc: This is a philosophical and religious issue. Your (a persons) final thoughts on this will always be the result of your worldview. Your worldview is the result of your upbringing, education etc. etc. etc. The bottom line is this, what we make of most anything in this world is governed by a basic presuposition, the paradighm we base our thoughts on. This is the one thing all scientists and philosophers agree on.
  
  My assumption starts with the Word of God. This states that God stiches you together in your mothers whomb. He created life. I say we should not be the ones to decide on the future of life that God created. If two people are dying, a stranger and my wife) and I can save one of them, I'm saving my wife. This argument of yours about the burning embryo building proves or disproves nothing. It is surcumstantial. You have to be coming from somewhere. Human beings mess things up. This post is about what should be done about it and why, and this in a general sense.
  
  No one said and embrio is = to a child. But I believe it can be classified as alive. If it can be killed it is alive( why do you thing people who are pro abortion talk about destoyed? This is to lull their own conscience). The real question is when does the soul and the spirit enter the embrio. If we are not sure, we should not be careless and assume we know and therefore destroy life and potential that could have been. That is my point. We should not take this chance and make this choise so lightly. The person with the unwanted pregnacy should have many choises and support from the government so that those choise are actual choises. the way it is now, scared girls will opt for abotion because, in reality, there are no other real proper choises.
  

• thenack said on Sep 13, 2006....

  The aim of this post was purely to use a disaster like 9-11 to perhaps bring some perspective on what I believe are issues that should get more funding and attention. I will never condone or be unsimpathetic to the acts and results of terrorism. I hate such cowardice. You should kn ow how I feel about the waste of money to find water on Mars. What is the friken point, NASA idiots. That money could have cured anothe cancer by now
  

• thenack said on Sep 13, 2006....

  COOLLINUX: I checked out the vid, very funny, very sad!
  

• bloc said on Sep 13, 2006....

  "If it can be killed it is alive ... That is my point. We should not take this chance and make this choise so lightly."
  
  Can't the same be said for animals that we eat?
  
  I'm not a christian, but I'm curious. What exactly does the bible say about when life is created?
  
  p.s. - the money spent by nasa improves our society enormously.
  

• missfickle said on Sep 13, 2006....

  Now this is a thought provoking topic, and one close to my heart as a midwife and yes a woman who has in the past made the decision to abort a life. Believe me this was not a decision taken lightly and as I was aware that with each day the life was growing I was under intense pressure to make a early quick decision, and my thoughts were being imposed on by anothers.
  
  Judge not lest the be judged.
  
  I have suffered emotionally ever since, and if I could prevent any woman having to make this decision I would.
  I have confronted my demons and in the memory of life I have embarked on a vocation of supporting women throughout their pregnancy.
  
  In the UK as you are aware, many women receive financial support if they decide to keep their child. Unfortunately in Amercia you don't have the same system.
  
  However just as prostitution has been around since the creation of mankind, so has abortion, and whilst I agree with you a life is a life from the moment of conception, a fact that is taught when learning about mieosis and reproduction, you will never irradicate abortion.
  
  Women will go back to doing what they had to do before, leave themselves at the will of a butcher, who punctures the uterus or bladder or leaves them with sepsis.
  
  I implore you not to judge, each circumstance has its own merrits, some more than others.
  
  Education and contraception still don't appear to get the message accross, and sadly the only way I can see is for those of us who have learnt the harsh lesson of termination, to support women in making a fair and just decision, based on their emotional, social, cultural and financial needs, and ensure that they don't get fooled into making the same mistake again.
  Believe me society does not make the decision easy either way, and for some a child born to neglect and suffering is too much to bare.
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  

• thenack said on Sep 14, 2006....

  missfickle, I am not judging anyone who have considered or had an abortion. I am saying life is precious and we should do much more to prevent the necessity of abortion and to improve and increase the other options. It sounds like you are doing just that. More people should.
  
  bloc, this is a good point but I can not see how you compare animals as equal to humans. On what basis. You'll kill a rat easier than a poodle. Why? Is is sise or youre projected perseption of the animals personality? Perhaps the bigger the animal the bigger its rights? Or how about the cuter the animal. My point of view stems from the bible wich made man keepewr of the planet, while he may utilise animals for his benifit. In a biblical world there would be no problems.
  
  I have to further admit that it is very difficult to deduct from the bible exactly when life begins. I suspect it is at conseption but when and where the spirit and the soul comes into being I don't know.
  
  I am an electronic engineer and love all things technical ie NASA is one of them. I am just saying some of the stuff they do could have been much more benificial to the human race, looking at the vast amounts of money they spent. Looking for water on Mars was the stupidist waste of money ever.
  
  Would you at least agree that more should be done to at least imp[rove and increase the choises a whomen has?
  

• missfickle said on Sep 14, 2006....

  Yes I would definately agree that more should be done, to increase womens choices especially in the USA, as I said before in the UK woman have far greater choice. For example a woman does not have to go back to work immediately if she is a single parent, she will be supported for a while. When she does eventually return, she will be able to claim tax credits and childcare allowance, as much as £120 a week. I'm not saying its a perfect system but it can help save lives.#
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  

• bloc said on Sep 14, 2006....

  "bloc, this is a good point but I can not see how you compare animals as equal to humans."
  
  I didn't consider them equal just like you didn't consider fertilized eggs equal to a child. You said that we should err on the safe side when it comes to life and I asked if that applies to animals as well.
  
  "Looking for water on Mars was the stupidist waste of money ever."
  
  It's not, but I don't have the time to explain it in detail. Many of our greatest achievements have come from pure research where no one could have imagined the great things that came out of it. People said exactly what you just said about the moon landing. Our industries were given enormous amounts of technology from that moon landing that made our economy much much strong. It benefitted us all directly.
  
  "Would you at least agree that more should be done to at least imp[rove and increase the choises a whomen has?"
  
  Of course. You need to talk to your pro lifers about this one. Most of them would rather see the kid starve on the street than pay taxes for welfare.
  

• thenack said on Sep 15, 2006....

  bloc: On this first thing, this is a good argument. It is precisely at this point where I have to resort to my beliefsystem. These lines are drawn by what our basic worldview is so I do not think it will help us to argue further, because the same applies to you.
  
  While I agree whith you on the technology front, I do not believe that we will ever benifit directly from deep-space travel. My point was very clear, I believe much more could be achieved if the money was directed at something usefull from the start. (by the way, the tech boosted you military which boosted you economy). The reason people wanted to find water on Mars was very religious in nature. It would have prolonged and strengthen the idiotic "panspermia" theory claiming that life originated somewhere in space, as opposed to earth. Why do you thing one of the Mars rovers was called the Begail. This is in reference to charles darwin. The whole theory of evolution is under presure so that is why they drained valuable resources, to prove a theory that is, by nature, philosophical. This was not done in the name of science.
  
  Your final point again is a good one, just as good as mine.
  
  Thanks for you good manners in this debate. I must say some people get too emotional to have a good conversation. (me included sometimes)
  
  Gotta go and do some work, keep well. TN
  

• bloc said on Sep 15, 2006....

  how is the theory of evolution philosophical? It can be tested empircally can't it? You seem opposed to looking for life in space because you've already made up your mind on the conclusion which may or may not be accurate. Actually testing that conclusion seems a valid endeavor to me.
  

• thenack said on Sep 18, 2006....

  Bloc, Yes I have made up my mind and I do not think life evolved in space, even if there was water on Mars. Earth is filled with water and therefore also life. I think the conclusion is pretty obvious. It started here.
  
  Please could you give me one empirical test for evolution? The world high priest of evolution, Richard Dawkings has admitted that at its core, evolution is also a belief system. Molecules to man evolution can not be empirically tested by definition. It is not repeatable. It is a theory based on assumptions made on bones and stuff found in the ground. Please don't reply by stating anything on species changing and mutations. That will be a waste of time as that is natural selection and is always a mistake(mutation) or a loss of information, never a gain. Molecules to man evolution requires a gain in genetic information. This has NEVER been recorded.
  
  I you think even for one second of all the living things that are irreducibly complex (ex. the evolution of the eye or a wing), it is clear that a designer was necessary. Nothing on earth can prove evolution. Why do you think evolutionists claim "millions and millions of years" about everything? Its because they know there is not even a single method by which genetic information can increase, there are so many unexplained and paradoxal things in evolution they need millions of years to hide everything. Evolution is a religious belief system by which all thing observed are interpreted. Ask Proff Dawking, its his religion.
  

Comment on "9-11 and Americas Hypocrisy"

Currently tagged	abortion 9-11 life starvation disease politics death terror Genocide suicide (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously