Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 40/46 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement)
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2438 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 105 of 167 (546583)
02-11-2010 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by New Cat's Eye
02-10-2010 3:33 PM


Re: "Human"
Hey Straggler.
Straggler writes:
Catholic Scientist writes:
If there's nothing you could do about it, sure.
And where you can do something about it? Are you saying that if we redirected all the medical resources currently aimed at cancer for example that we could not save many of those lost conceptuses that never even make it to the implanting in the uterus stage of development? We would need to save only a small percentage in order to outstrip those that we can save from cancer.
The technology's already there, fellas. It's call fertility treatments. I can guarantee you that with Clomid, injectable treatments like Follistim, as well as intrauterine insemination or hell, IVF if you want to go "all in", we'd whittle that 70% down by maybe three-quarters (a good faith estimate ). We'd have to make these treatments mandatory for all women of childbearing age, regardless of cost, because, you know, cost shouldn't be a consideration when considering the life of death of the unborn.
Yes, it's a ridiculous premise, but one I thought was interesting. Would Hyro then argue we'd need to go this far, if it's indeed a possibility? To what end? Overpopulation? As if it doesn't exist already! How far will the pro-life crowd wish to extend the argument? If it doesn't necessarily extend to the lengths I outlined above, then I believe one's standpoint need be reevaluated.
Have a good one.
Edited by Apothecus, : whoops! hit "reply" to wrong message. oh well, you gents get the point...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2010 3:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2438 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 106 of 167 (546587)
02-11-2010 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2010 4:34 PM


Question about Catholicism
Hey CS.
Is not "original sin" a core tenet of the Catholic faith? If so, this would explain the traditional Catholic standpoint on everything from birth control pills to Plan-B to full out abortion. So if I'm thinking correctly, according to some, due to original sin, all of these naturally or artificially aborted fetuses what? Go to hell? Is that really what Catholics generally think happens? Do you subscribe to this as a Catholic? Why?
Just curious, and maybe you could shed some light on my confusion.
Have a good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 4:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 7:52 PM Apothecus has replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2438 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 108 of 167 (546594)
02-11-2010 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2010 7:52 PM


Re: Question about Catholicism
I think the pro-lifers would see that as "playing god"... you know what I mean?
I do see what you mean. You realize I was using facetiousness to extend the argument, right?
Thanks for the info regarding Catholicism. It's kind of what I thought I had heard (grew up in a mostly Cath. community, dated a few Cath schoolgirls ), especially the baptism thing, but I couldn't quite remember. But thanks.
And now back to the topic at hand, eh?
Have a good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 7:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2438 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 142 of 167 (547518)
02-19-2010 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Rahvin
02-19-2010 6:22 PM


Re: Hypocrisy
Rahvin writes:
All females of menstrual age should be undergo mandatory breeding...
Back in Message 105 I put forward a proposal for mandatory fertility treatments for all women of childbearing age. You wanted technology to all but eliminate miscarriages (known or unknown)...well, it's already here! Coupled with mandatory breeding, we could have this place swarming in NO time.
Babies for everyone!!!

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Rahvin, posted 02-19-2010 6:22 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024