Re: How the US Ranks on Female Mortality During Childbirth
It's called "FAILED PREGNANCY", you sadistic monster! And the necessary treatment of failed pregnancies is ABORTION, otherwise the MOTHER ALONG WITH THE EMBRYO/FETUS.
In Sunday School, we were taught the story of Abraham and Isaac as being the elimination of human sacrifice in Judaism and, since Christianity is supposed to an offshoot of Judaism, also in Christianity. But now you hypocritical "true Christians" want to return to practicing human sacrifice. All in the name of being "pro-life".
What the fuck is so fucking "pro-life" about deliberately killing women?
Pregnancies fail. That is a medical fact! Without treatment, the mother will die a horrible death, if she is lucky (meaning that should she survive the damage done to her body and health will be horrendous and terrible to have to live with).
If her doctor is allowed to provide her with the essential medical care that she requires (which includes an abortion) and quickly enough, then he can not only save her life but also hopefully ensure that she can get pregnant again.
But if you sadistic assholes prevent him from providing that care (as you are already doing in several states with horrific results), then she will suffer horribly while her doctors are forced by you assholes to withhold treatment until she is on the very verge of death from infection or just plain bleeding out. The few women who have survived that ordeal have testified before Congress and other governmental bodies describing what they were forced to go through, including being sent home untreated repeatedly as her condition steadily worsened, or have to go out to the parking lot to wait in her car bleeding out until she's nearly dead.
And all that wasted time imposed on her by you monstrous assholes causes her body to suffer grave damage leaving her sterile if not dead.
These women wanted that baby and usually already have other children. So you're not just killing a woman, but you are also taking children's mothers away from them. And most of them would want more children, but you want to force them to end up sterile. All in the name of "pro-life". What's so fucking "pro-life" about your stupid atrocities?
Since you will never read it, here's what we were taught in the Lamaze class for our first child:
Lamaze Lesson:
The fetus develops inside the amniotic sack which is filled with amniotic fluid. That environment keeps the fetus safe from bacteria. If that sack were to tear, then bacteria could invade the fetus and kill it through infection, infecting the mother as well.
A precursor to giving birth is "having the water break". That means that the amniotic sack has ruptured causing the amniotic fluid to empty out. We were taught that when that happens, she has to get to the hospital immediately because the baby needs to be getting born. Otherwise, within 24 hours bacterial infection will start to set in.
One form of failed pregnancy is when the amniotic sack ruptures prematurely, as in long before the fetus could possibly be viable. The subsequent raging infection can kill if left untreated, as you want to have happen.
quote:Obstetric complications are those complications that develop during pregnancy. A woman may develop an infection, syndrome or complication that is not unique to pregnancy and that may have existed before pregnancy. Pregnancy often is complicated by preexisting and concurrent conditions. Though these pre-existing and concurrent conditions may have great impact on pregnancy, they are not included in the following list.
[DWise1: sorry, too rushed to format this into a list]
Re: How the US Ranks on Female Mortality During Childbirth
It is atrocious to suggest that we can cut the rate of mother's dying during, and shortly after, childbirth in half by killing 50% more innocent babies.
Short answer: If the mother dies, then so does the fetus!
So you get a two-fer, two deaths for one, to sate your blood lust.
Re: How the US Ranks on Female Mortality During Childbirth
***No true Christian is casual about murder. If they say they are, then they are not Christian.
And yet you are!
But not merely casual about murder. You insist on it! You revel in it! You are a blood-thirsty murderous monster.
Why are you so zealous about killing women? About killing mothers? Why do you hate women so much that you want them to die after suffering horrifically for days?
Because of your god? A bloodthirsty god who demands human sacrifice? The Jewish and Christian god gave up on human sacrifice, or so the Bible tells us. What evil god to you worship and serve? Most definitely not the Christian one.
As far as I know, the Bible doesn't mention abortion except for one time, Numbers 5, where you are commanded to perform an abortion if you believe that the child your wife is carrying is not yours. It even tells you how to perform that abortion. That is the only actual mention of abortion in the Bible that I am aware of.
The Bible's penalty for murder is death, even for manslaughter. But what is the penalty for causing the death of a fetus? You call it "murder" so shouldn't the penalty be the same? So why isn't it? The penalty is to pay a monetary fine to the father for loss of property. So the Bible says that the fetus is not a person, but rather just property.
Who do you think you are to contradict the Bible? To claim that it says things that it clearly does not say? To put words in God's mouth? And who do you think you are to use the words you put in God's mouth in order to justify the torture killing of women on such a massive scale as to qualify as a crime against humanity?
If you know of any prohibition of abortion in the Bible, please present it. DO NOT BOTHER US WITH RANDO IRRELEVENT PASSAGES THAT YOU REINTERPRET AND TWIST AND DISTORT TO PUT WORDS IN GOD'S MOUTH!! If you actually believed in God, then the last thing you would want to do would be to commit blasphemy by putting words in God's mouth!
You have lost, if you ever had it, empathy.
You are projecting your own utter lack of empathy.
Seriously, why do you hate women so incredibly much?
quote:The Socratic method (also known as the method of Elenchus or Socratic debate) is a form of argumentative dialogue between individuals based on asking and answering questions. Socratic dialogues feature in many of the works of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, where his teacher Socrates debates various philosophical issues with an "interlocutor" or "partner".
In Plato's dialogue "Theaetetus", Socrates describes his method as a form of "midwifery" because it is employed to help his interlocutors develop their understanding in a way analogous to a child developing in the womb. The Socratic method begins with commonly held beliefs and scrutinizes them by way of questioning to determine their internal consistency and their coherence with other beliefs and so to bring everyone closer to the truth.
In modified forms, it is employed today in a variety of pedagogical contexts.
Hence I ask creationists (et alia) questions about their claims. That includes my constantly repeated question to Candle3 how his lies about radiocarbon dating are supposed to have anything to do with that dating method (particularly the trace amounts of recently generated C-14 in buried fossils). In that way, not only do I give them the chance to present their case, but I also open up the opportunity for a conversation and discussion.
The problem is that that approach requires both parties to approach the discussion honestly. If one side refuses to engage honestly, then no discussion can take place despite all the other side's efforts. That is the problem of which you speak and that is the problem that I constantly encounter with creationists (especially).
When I started studying creationism in 1981, I quickly discovered that every one of their claims I encountered was false and that most of them were based on ignorance of the science they claimed to be using. When I started discussing online, I assumed that, since Christians are supposed to be all about the Truth and all that, all I'd have to do was explain what they had gotten wrong and their inherent honesty would motivate them to correct their mistakes. Instead, I was met with extreme hostility. Indeed, I found that the surest way to infuriate a creationist was to take his claims seriously and to try to discuss them with him. Even just asking for more information about his claim was met with extreme vitriol.
I came to realize that they literally just didn't know what they were talking about. That all they "knew" was what they had been told, which they memorized by rote in order to be able to repeat it verbatim, but they totally lacked the bare minimum understanding of the claim that they needed to be able to discuss it. So they lashed out in anger in order to cover up their abject ignorance and to kill my attempts at a discussion as quickly as possible.
Other explanations can be that they are intent on attacking their imagined foe (ie, whatever nonsense they imagine "evolution" to be) believing that that is all it will take to "prove Creation", so they have no interest in discussion; analogous to that scene in Braveheart (1995):
Braveheart:
Scots on the battlefield in their blue warpaint:
Hamish: Where are you going? William Wallace: I'm going to pick a fight. Hamish: Well, we didn't get dressed up for nothing.
Yet other explanations include the sad fact that many of them are actively engaged in deception.
So what to do when faced with an unwilling participant?
In the spirit of Aggadah (a rabbinic approach to teaching through story-telling -- one of our lectures literally discussed the theory of telling a joke), here's an old joke:
The World's Smartest Mule:
A man was sold what he was told was the world's smartest mule. The buyer even demonstrated that fact by giving the mule a complicated task to perform and it performed it. The seller's last instructions to the buyer was to remember to always treat the mule with kindness.
The buyer took the mule home and told it to do something. And the mule just stood there. He repeated the command and still nothing. He tried other commands and to each command still nothing. The mule just stood there.
Angry, the buyer brought the mule back to the seller and told him what happened, or rather what didn't happen. The buyer thought for a moment and told the buyer to demonstrate the problem, so the buyer gave the mule a command and yet again the mule just stood there.
So the seller picked up a 2-by-4 and with all his might struck the mule with it right between the eyes. After a while, the mule started to come to, shook its head, gathered its splayed-out legs back under itself, and stood there dazed. The seller then had the buyer repeat the command and the mule performed the commanded task.
Shocked, the buyer said, "But you said I must always treat him with kindness." "Yes, that is true. But you also need to get his attention first."
So all we are left with is trying to get their attention. Maybe we need a bigger two-by-four.
Re: How the US Ranks on Female Mortality During Childbirth
Your willful idiocy makes you a blood-thirsty murderous monster through your insistence upon and support for stupid anti-abortion laws that kill women for no other purpose than dogmatic unbiblical "religious" beliefs. And "cultural warfare" fueled by willful stupidity.
You keep willfully denying the existence of undeniable medical realities, which includes the reality that pregnancies can fail and those failures have the very high likelihood of seriously injuring or even killing the mother, and which require immediate medical care. Why do you persist in denying those undeniable truths?
Instead, you scribble down stupid laws the forbid doctors from providing the medical care that a woman in the midst of a failed pregnancy desperately needs, such that without that necessary medical she could very well DIE.
***I am the one who wants to protect the weakest among us. You, on the other hand, are obsessed with the right of mother's to kill their own babies (fetus-unborn offspring).
THAT IS NOT THE SUBJECT BEING DISCUSSED, YOU IDIOT! Pull your head out of your ass!
A mother suffering a failed pregnancy is not asserting any right to "kill her own baby", but rather is fighting for her life, for her right to stay alive!*I* am advocating for her right to receive the necessary medical treatment to save her lifeYOU are demanding that she be denied that necessary medical treatment such that she will DIE UNNECESSARILY!
You try to rationalize her unnecessary death as being necessary to "save the life of the fetus", which is a lie (and you already lie so much already). Are you too stupid to realize that if the mother dies, then so does the fetus? And many failed pregnancies fail because the fetus is already dying on its own. So how is killing the mother supposed to save the life of that fetus?
Those are not rhetorical questions. I DEMAND THAT YOU ANSWER THEM! I demand that you at least try to defend your position of killing the mother as a way to save the fetus. Your mindless repeating of stupid reality-denying dogma does not suffice.
What part of "she will die without this treatment" do you refuse to acknowledge? Why do you persist in insisting that she be pushed to the edge of death and beyond? Why do you insist that a woman with a failed pregnancy be denied the medical treatment that she needs "in order to save her fetus", when that fetus is already dying in most cases (eg, from a raging bacterial infection) or at the very least will die anyway when the mother dies? So tell us, you fucking moron, just exactly how that fetus is supposed to survive the death of its mother?
Here's an analogy:
We can agree that it's generally not a good thing for people to go around cutting the limbs off of others. Some idiots feel so strongly about it that they pass laws forbidding cutting off another person's limbs, attaching to those laws extremely severe penalties for anyone violating those laws, even doctors under any circumstances.
So when a patient develops gangrene in one of his extremities and amputation of that limb is required to save his life, your stupid anti-amputation law keeps that doctor from saving that patient's life. All because you were too stupid and dogmatic to have given any thought to the real-world consequences of your actions.
When that patient dies, who's to blame? Not the doctor, since it's your stupid law that forbade him from providing the necessary treatment. And not the patient himself, whom you insist on blaming, you evil hypocrite! No, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH because of your stupid dogmatism that led to the stupid law that killed him.
In Exodus 21: 22-23. "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yey no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life." God even demands that a life shall be taken for accidentally killing an unborn baby.
Please don't lie about what the Bible and God say! God is not demanding that a life be taken for accidentally killing an unborn baby, BUT RATHER FOR ALSO HARMING THE MOTHER!
Tie down your jerking knee, pull your head out, and READ IT this time!.
Done? And you still don't understand it? Jessica H. Christ!, you are hopeless!
OK, let's draw on a common Talmudic approach even though it will fly way over your extremely low-overhead cranium. Though Pascal's Wager (stupidly misunderstood and misused by fundies) uses the same approach. Anyone with computer or digital electronics or logic experience will recognize this construct as a truth table.
Consider two conditions when taken together yield four outcomes. Here, the two conditions are killing the mother or killing the fetus (referred to as "doing harm"):
If the mother is harmed and the fetus is harmed, then give life for life. Note that the penalty is due to what happens to the mother, not to the fetus.
If the mother is harmed and the fetus is not harmed, then give life for life. This case would never happen, since killing the mother would automatically kill the fetus too. Hence, yet again the penalty is due to what happens to the mother, not to the fetus.
If the mother is not harmed and the fetus is harmed, then pay a fine to the father for his loss of property. No life for a life, since the fetus does not yet qualify as having a life.
If the mother is not harmed and the fetus is not harmed, then nothing is to be done. No harm, no fowl.
A "life for life" penalty is only called for because of harm to the mother, but not for harm to the fetus. When only the fetus is harmed, then it's just a monetary fine, never a "life for life" penalty.
What the hell are you getting your "God even demands that a life shall be taken for accidentally killing an unborn baby" from? Did you just pull that nonsense out of your ass?
The rest is just the same stupid bullshit that you vomit every time. Remember: Man ist was man ißt. ("You are what you eat" -- so if you constantly feed on bullshit then you end up being bullshit).
Abortion is a medical procedure. Contrary to your misguided misconception, elective abortion is not the only use of that medical procedure. There are many medical situations where abortion is NECESSARY, not elective.
Promoting and supporting misguided laws intended to end elective abortions by banning all abortions necessarily have the effect of banning the vitally needed abortions WITHOUT WHICH THE MOTHER WILL DIE.
And whenever a mother dies because of your insistence that she be denied necessary medical care, then you are indeed to blame for her death!
You are indeed a bloodthirsty monster demanding the deaths of women.
QED
Now reply to Percy's Message 26 question directly to you:
Re: How the US Ranks on Female Mortality During Childbirth
Even if there were no God, I would still be against the taking of innocent lives.
As are atheists.
But you are for the taking of innocent lives, the innocent lives of women suffering from failed pregnancies.
So you are lying to me, TO MY FACE, YET AGAIN!
Have you no shame?
You make it sound like atheists believe murder is okay. Is this your premise?
No, atheists do not believe murder is okay. Rather, it is you "true Christians" (ie, fake "Christians" who have abandoned Christian teachings) who, through your actions (not your words because you are hypocrites) demonstrate that you do believe that murder is okay.
If you disagree, then show us otherwise. Show us your compassion for women whom you would condemn to a horrible death for suffering a failed pregnancy.
That's right, you have no compassion.
Edited by dwise1, : At end, "have none" -> "have no compassion"
Re: How the US Ranks on Female Mortality During Childbirth
How come you, Dwise, AZ, and others on this forum, fail to understand this concept?
Because it is a complete non sequitur, IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, you fucking moron!!!!
We are talking about your fanatical crusade to kill innocent women under the flimsy pretense of "protecting the unborn".
Your fanatical crusade has flooded our country with anti-abortion laws which threaten doctors with extremely severe punishment if they provide medical treatment to women suffering from failed pregnancies. Failure to provide that necessary medical treatment THAT YOU DO NOT WANT THEM TO RECEIVE will, in the vast majority of cases, result in the woman's death.
Those women want to see their pregnancy to term; they want that baby as does the father. Many of them already have other children. IOW, those women bear absolutely NO semblance to the stereotyped women you insist on railing against.
Unlike your stupid bullshit fantasies, those women we describe actually exist. Many have actually died because of you, which is what makes you the bloodthirsty monster that you are. The lucky ones had the means to flee their benighted state with its barbaric laws and seek medical treatment in a civilized state, but should you get your way and put a national ban in place, then their only hope will be to flee the country -- even that avenue will be cut off from them with your laws restricting the travel of a pregnant woman, etc.
Every time we try to discuss this situation with you, you run away from it, completely ignore that it exists, and choose to try to change the subject with your stupid bullshit abortion rantings.
Re: How the US Ranks on Female Mortality During Childbirth
Just answer the fucking question, you stupid brain-dead asshole. Instead of spewing forth a torrent of bullshit lies. (since everything else you have posted has been nothing but bullshit lies, we know that the same applies here)
And answer why you approve of, support, and promote laws that kill innocent women.
"Endlessly repeating this isn't proving successful. How do you think you might better persuade people that abortion is murder?"
{ 32 cm (12.6 in) of your same old stupid bullshit that has absolutely nothing to do with what you were "replying" to, even though this batch was fresher bullshit than usual }
All you did was to prove Percy's point. Nice piece of hoisting yourself on your own petard.
You obviously have no desire whatsoever to persuade anyone of anything ... besides what a mindlessly despicable fanatic you are. That is the same with all the various forms of bullshit you post here, then ignore any replies except to post even more irrelevant bullshit.
So what do you think you could possibly hope accomplish with such a deliberately losing strategy? Just vent your anger and hate at everybody else? Why don't you just save that for the neighborhood kids ("Get off my lawn, you little hoodlums!")?
Or are you trying to fluff your fragile ego (or try to compensate for feelings of spiritual inadequacies) by attacking others just to make yourself feel "morally superior" to everybody else?
But just how "morally superior" could it be to seek to ban all abortions, including the abortions required in grave medical emergencies to save the lives of innocent women suffering from failed pregnancies.?
Your anti-abortion propaganda is bullshit. But the unnecessary suffering and death you visit upon innocent women is very real.
Not that you would ever care, lacking a soul. Besides, you probably revel in their suffering.
So what to do when faced with an unwilling participant?
In the spirit of Aggadah (a rabbinic approach to teaching through story-telling -- one of our lectures literally discussed the theory of telling a joke), here's an old joke:
The World's Smartest Mule:
A man was sold what he was told was the world's smartest mule. The buyer even demonstrated that fact by giving the mule a complicated task to perform and it performed it. The seller's last instructions to the buyer was to remember to always treat the mule with kindness.
The buyer took the mule home and told it to do something. And the mule just stood there. He repeated the command and still nothing. He tried other commands and to each command still nothing. The mule just stood there.
Angry, the buyer brought the mule back to the seller and told him what happened, or rather what didn't happen. The buyer thought for a moment and told the buyer to demonstrate the problem, so the buyer gave the mule a command and yet again the mule just stood there.
So the seller picked up a 2-by-4 and with all his might struck the mule with it right between the eyes. After a while, the mule started to come to, shook its head, gathered its splayed-out legs back under itself, and stood there dazed. The seller then had the buyer repeat the command and the mule performed the commanded task.
Shocked, the buyer said, "But you said I must always treat him with kindness." "Yes, that is true. But you also need to get his attention first."
We have been reduced to beating you over the head with a two-by-four in a desperate attempt to get your attention. But your skull is too thick (most likely solid bone).
So what is it supposed to take to get through to you?
What laws are you specifically talking about about?
The plethora of anti-abortion state laws that have dominated the news after the Dobbs decision struck down Roe v. Wade. What rock have you been hibernating under?
There is some slight variations, but many of these laws are based on a model heartbeat bill which makes abortion illegal when a fetal heartbeat is present -- follow that link for more information including what each state has done. Many of these laws impose draconian punishment against doctors who violate this law, including loss of medical license, substantial prison sentences, or even the death penalty.
Most of these laws allow exceptions for such things as rape, incest, health of the mother, but some do not allow any exceptions. Even the ones that allow exceptions are very vague about how to qualify for those exceptions. That means that doctors in the midst of handling a medical emergency doesn't know what he's allowed to do to save his patient and the fear of punishment for doing the right thing keeps him from acting. Indeed, in some cases the mother had to apply to the courts to get the exception but then the State of Texas denied her such that she had to flee the state in order to get medical treatment.
Basically, the only clear part of the laws is that the doctor has to wait until the infection has finally killed the fetus such that the fetal heartbeat finally stops, but by that time the infection has raged unchecked in the mother's body leaving her on the verge of death before the doctor can feel personally safe enough to treat her.
Many horror stories have come out, including the very sick mother being sent home repeatedly until the fetus' condition had deteriorated enough, or having to go out to her car in the parking lot to fill diapers with her own blood waiting to get sick enough for the doctors to finally be allowed to treat her.
That is absolutely barbaric! AND THAT IS THE HORRIFIC SITUATION YOU SUPPORT!
If it is the case that you do not support such barbaric contempt for human life, then tell us! If you oppose what those laws are doing, then tells us and convince us of your sincerity (sorry, but you have lied to us TO OUR FACE far too many times for us to make the mistake of believing anything you say).
And if you support what those laws are doing, then own your inhumanity. And also cut the crap about "trying to save the unborn".
I have been talking about the killing of 1.3 million innocent American babies every year.
Which makes you absolutely the only person talking about that. While we have been talking about the unnecessary death and suffering being inflicted on innocent women in the midst of a medical emergency.
Jessica H. Christ! What the fuck is wrong with you? Pull your head out of your ass and learn to read the room! Fucking idiot!
quote:Miscarriage, also known as spontaneous abortion, is the unintentional expulsion of an embryo or fetus before the 24th week of gestation. A pregnancy that ends before 37 weeks of gestation resulting in a live-born infant is a "premature birth" or a "preterm birth". When a fetus dies in utero after viability, or during delivery, it is usually termed "stillborn". Premature births and stillbirths are generally not considered to be miscarriages, although usage of these terms can sometimes overlap.
Studies of pregnant women in the US and China have shown that between 40% and 60% of embryos do not progress to birth. The vast majority of miscarriages occur before the woman is aware that she is pregnant, and many pregnancies spontaneously abort before medical practitioners can detect an embryo. Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman. 80% of these spontaneous abortions happen in the first trimester.
The most common cause of spontaneous abortion during the first trimester is chromosomal abnormalities of the embryo or fetus, accounting for at least 50% of sampled early pregnancy losses.
As per that last, spontaneous abortion plays a major role in eliminating most of the "bad" mutations that creationists seem to believe must result in full-term offspring. Also, that "40% and 60%" figure agrees with the conventional wisdom that half of all conceptions will spontaneously abort. In my personal opinion, that also explains the practice of planting a few seeds in the same seed hole in the hope that at least one will germination; if more than one germinates, the farmer simply most the extras into their own holes to grow.
Induced Abortion -- This is what we are talking about (my emphasis added):
quote:An induced abortion is a medical procedure to end a pregnancy. In present-day English, the term abortion, when used without further qualification, generally refers to induced abortion.
. . .
Abortions can be characterized as either therapeutic or elective.When an abortion is performed for medical reasons, the procedure is referred to as a therapeutic abortion. Medical reasons for therapeutic abortion include saving the life of the pregnant woman, preventing harm to the woman's physical or mental health, preventing the birth of a child who will have a significantly increased chance of mortality or morbidity, and reducing the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy. An abortion is referred to as elective or voluntary when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons. Confusion sometimes arises over the term elective because "elective surgery" generally refers to all scheduled surgery, whether medically necessary or not.
So that means THAT A THERAPEUTIC ABORTION IS STILL AN ABORTION. Indeed, the medical terminology that is entered into the patient's medical record is "abortion", which I'm sure is also the terminology used in the ICD database entry for that procedure (you see those codes in your doctor's bill). That is what it is called; you are not allowed to "define it away" as your lot tries to do with everything else. It is what it is.
I've heard doctors being interviewed about this. The name of the therapeutic abortion procedure includes the word "abortion", since that is precisely what it is. Doctors in those states with those draconian anti-abortion laws live in fear of you anti-abortion fanatics (including local DAs) seeing that medical entry and trying to have him prosecuted under that state's literally stupid law. Or the fanatics will engage in stochastic terrorism against that doctor by deploying their flying monkey wing; I'm sure that your church is filled with them.
The main problem with those stupid anti-abortion laws is that they were written by idiots (like yourself) lacking medical knowledge. You just recently posted:
Doctors study for many years. They are quite knowledgeable.
And yet those laws forbid doctors from using their knowledge and their medical judgement (also taught and developed in their training) by dictating to them what they can and cannot do, even if that endangers the life of the mother.
What they need to do is to replace those extremely stupid laws with smarter ones with input from medical professionals (preferably OB-GYN, the ones directly affected by the laws) so that they make medical sense. As it is, those laws are killing women with their idiocy. We do not need religious fanatics trying to micromanage doctors in the middle of a medical emergency, especially when their intended purpose is to block her receiving the necessary medical care.
A failed pregnancy is not the same thing as an abortion. Failed pregnancy is a condition, whereas abortion is a procedure. A failed pregnancy is a condition that requires medical treatment. That medical treatment can include therapeutic abortion.
How could anyone be unable to understand such basic things? I shouldn't have to explain it to anyone, yet you insist on not understanding it. And frankly, I have no reason to hope that you understand it now.
Also, if a mother's life is seriously at stake I would u/s.
"u/s"? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Use English!
If it's supposed to mean "understand", then that's most certainly a change of heart for you. Up to this point you have been resisting and opposing understanding the idea of a doctor needing to provide medical treatment for a mother whose life is seriously at stake.
What the fuck do you think I've been arguing for all this time? Which you have consistently opposed.
So please understand why I view your sudden change of heart with skepticism. And it doesn't help that you have a long history of lying to us about just about anything and everything.
God is not a monster;
You have created your god in your own image. Since you have demonstrated yourself to be a monster, then so must be your god.
No, no, he’s not an exception, Tangle. He’s a nutcase. A case of nuts. An enclosure enwrapping the nuggets of a weak minded religious fantasy.
And right on cue you prove him completely right. Good job!
Occam's Razor states that soft tissue in dino fossils is proof of recent death, as does C-14.
Plus you continue to lie your ass off every single time you open your mouth. Like with your incessant lying about "soft tissue" and "C-14" (you still haven't come to the Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2 topic yet, have you? Despite that being the place to discuss radiocarbon dating. Or should I say that you are avoiding it out of fear because that's where that topic is discussed?) . I already demonstrated (in Message 83) how you had lied in Message 74 about Fibres and cellular structures preserved in 75-million–year-old dinosaur specimens, Sergio Bertazzo, Susannah C R Maidment, Charalambos Kallepitis, Sarah Fearn, Molly M Stevens, Hai-nan Xie, and you have no response?
And now you add stupid lies about the Grand Canyon? What's next, The Return of the Giant Mud Fossils?
It should be clear to everyone that the Canyon was formed from the runoff of a global flood, with water escaping from the large water basin North and East of the canyon.
We know exactly what such an event should produce, BECAUSE WE SEE IT IN THE CHANNELED SCABLANDS. And what that kind of event produces looks nothing at all like the Grand Canyon.
Jessica H. Christ! Pull your head out of your ass and LEARN SOMETHING!
In my latest reply to you (albeit to an old lie), Message 12 in that topic you're so utterly afraid to go near, I describe your situation:
Not only is nothing creationists "expose" anything new to scientists, but the source of creationists' information are the scientists themselves. ... Rather, it's the lay audience, the general public with no training in the fields being misrepresented, who are the targets of creationist deception. Creationists don't want to talk with the scientists who would see right through their deception in an instant, but rather the "great unwashed" who don't know anything and so can be fooled.
You don't know anything which makes you a prime target for creationist deception. And you have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker!And you will continue to fall for their lies as long as you maintain your pristine and profound ignorance.
But if you were to learn the science that they are lying about, then you will be able to see through their lies. Learning even just a little will make their lies turn transparent -- that is why creationists avoid even talking with scientists (eg, Gish & Morris' visit to USGS in the early 70's where the hottest topic their presentation sparked was all these scientists trying to explain to them what they got wrong about thermodynamics, so that was the last time they ever talked to scientists). Similarly, savvy YECs know to avoid any discussion of young-earth or flood-geology claims with someone knowledgeable; it's just the stupider YECs, like you, who don't know when to cut and run.
And seriously, which stupid lying creationist are you copying your stupid bullshit lies from? Seriously! Maybe he (or they) provide some actual links to the sources that they are lying about. Maybe even the text of their quote mining (AKA "lying") of those sources -- you know full well what I'm talking about because I have described their methods to you several times already.
I could go on for hours about the absurdity of evolution, ...
Oh, I'm sure you can go on for hours reciting stupid bullshit lies about "evolution" (whatever the fuck you mean by that term, because nothing you have ever posted here has ever had anything to do with evolution, but rather just some stupid bullshit strawman nonsense), but why waste everybody's time?
But if you really want to expose problems with evolution, THEN FIRST YOU MUST LEARN WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS! Yet again:
DWise1:My position basically boils down to this:
If you honestly and truly want to fight evolution, then at least do it right! Learn everything you can about evolution and then attack it, not some stupid strawman caricature of it. And do so honestly and truthfully!
By refusing to fight evolution honestly and truthfully, but rather using "creation science" instead, you are constantly shooting yourself in the foot, dooming your cause to failure and your followers to losing their faith.
What part of that are you so stubbornly incapable of understanding?
Seriously, how could anyone ever possibly get through to you?
My mind came from God. He is the One who gave me life; He gave life to everyone and everything.
If you really believed that, then wouldn't it be sacrilege to defile that "God-given mind" with complete and utter lies as you constantly do by feeding it stupid creationist bullshit lies?
Or would you rather force God to cast pearls before swine (meaning before you)?
Re: How the US Ranks on Female Mortality During Childbirth
You asked: "You think science's understanding of abiogenesis and consciousness is that they leached from a rock?" ***This is simply one of the ridiculous beliefs that they have.
Except that it isn't!NOBODY believes that, EXCEPT FOR STUPID LYING CREATIONISTS!
To again quote zoologist and Christian Clint of the YouTube channel, Clint's Reptiles (see my mid=919521]):
quote:If I can't explain someone else's position so accurately that they could sign off that I had it right, then why would they have any interest in my criticism of their position? I don't even know what it is.
You do not know what science's position is as demonstrated by your repeated and persistently and blatantly false misrepresentations of science.
Indeed, you are in the unenviable position of NOT EVEN BEING WRONG -- id est, nothing you say has anything at all to do with the subject. You keep using the word "evolution", but nothing you ever say about it has anything at all to do with evolution.
So why don't you start by explaining to us exactly what you think evolution is and how it is taught to work. WE have explained it to you, so do you persist in refusing to explain your version to us? What are you trying to hide?
Oh, and since we have repeatedly explained to you what's wrong with your false claims, then every time you repeat them it is with full knowledge that they are false (and of why they are false), therefore every time you repeat those same false claims with the knowledge that they are false, then you are DELIBERATELY LYING.
Used to be that Christians believed that lying was a sin; now they believe that lying is a virtue if not an article of faith.
An individual who does not believe in the Creator God must, by necessity, believe in an alternative.
So since you believe in the anti-Creation alternative known as "creationism", that would mean that you do not believe in "the Creator God". No wonder you act so confused.
Evolution is integral to life itself and so is an integral part of the Creation. Given life doing what life naturally does, it is impossible for it to not be evolving. Regardless of how life got started, once life started doing with life does then it has been evolving.
There is no conflict between evolution and Creation. Rather, there is conflict between creationism and the Creation, such that creationism teaches that if the Creation is as it actual is, then that would disprove God. And the only way for you to resolve that conflict is to lie about the Creation, which is part and parcel of every YEC claim.
You appear to want to fight against evolution, so why don't you?
If you really want to fight against evolution, THEN DO SO AND STOP WASTING YOUR TIME WITH CREATIONIST LIES. Remember, creationists are lying to you!
In order to fight evolution, you first need to know what it is. So start by learning everything you can about evolution. Pay no attention to what creationists tell you, since they share your abject ignorance of evolution and are feeding you lies, including their utterly false strawman caricature that they call "evolution" but which bears only the most superficial resemblance to evolution.
But if you are too afraid of fighting evolution, then continue to waste your time and effort AND SUFFER THE LOSS OF ALL CREDIBILITY by flailing ineffectively against a made-up creationist boogeyman.
If you want to convince us that you are full of shit, then continue to demonstrate that you are full of shit. If you want to convince us that we should take what you say seriously, then demonstrate that you are not full of shit.
Your choice. And, sadly, we already know which path you will choose: the broad path to Perdition (Matt 7:13).
Re: Candle3 Parading his Willful Ignorance Yet Again
Dwise, what you call evolution, or evolving, I refer to as variation.
Variation is just one very small part. If you think that that is all that evolution is, then you are truly abjectly ignorant of evolution.
Another part of evolution is natural selection which you left out. Along with population dynamics and diversification and so much more.
You're making the typical stupid creationist mistake of redefining evolution as just one of its many parts. And you're too ignorant and too willfully stupid to realize how extremely little you know about evolution -- and that almost everything you think you know is nothing but creationist lies.
If you know nothing about your enemy nor about yourself, how could you ever possibly hope to prevail?
Sun Tzu:Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
Sun Tzu, The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963.
You do not know "the enemy" and you do not know yourself. You are in constant peril.
We are trying to help you out of your condition of constant peril, but you refuse our help.
First step is for you to finally answer the questions that you must be able to answer, or at least must address:
quote:
What do you think evolution is?
How to you think it's supposed to work?
Why do you oppose it?
If you think that it somehow conflicts with your religion, then why would that be?
Work on those few questions to start with.
... why don't you tell us exactly how life began. Be very specific. This is your first obstacle. Don't blow it.
You already know that that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution! So why are you lying to us yet again?
EXPLAIN TO US WHAT ABIOGENESIS HAS TO DO WITH EVOLUTION! Explain to us exactly how and why abiogenesis would present any kind of a problem for evolution.
Seriously! If you really and truly think that evolution depends on the question of how life came into existence, then explain to us why that would be the case! I have already demanded that of you before and you have always run away from the question.
I have already explained it to you several times, most recently in this Message 71 that you are claiming to be replying to but are actually avoiding:
Evolution is integral to life itself and so is an integral part of the Creation. Given life doing what life naturally does, it is impossible for it to not be evolving. Regardless of how life got started, once life started doing with life does then it has been evolving.
Your response each and every time was to ignore it and to run away from it. If you disagree with it, then explain why you disagree. WARNING: your explanation would require you to present what you think evolution is and how it is supposed to work. Something that you always refuse to do.
But let's turn that question around to you:
"why don't you tell us exactly how life began. Be very specific."
The thing is, you already claimed to us that you knew exactly HOW life began. Yes, that's right, YOU LIED STRAIGHT TO OUR FACES and you'd better believe that we will never forget it!
I demanded that, since you possess such information, you reveal it to us. YOU RAN AWAY! Because you knew full well that you had lied to us.
There is no conflict between evolution and Creation. Rather, there is conflict between creationism and the Creation, such that creationism teaches that if the Creation is as it actual is, then that would disprove God. And the only way for you to resolve that conflict is to lie about the Creation, which is part and parcel of every YEC claim.
As a creationist (and especially as a YEC) you constantly deny the Creation and hence also the Creator. Yet another fact that sends you running away.
And, as always, you avoided the important question:
You appear to want to fight against evolution, so why don't you?
If you really want to fight against evolution, THEN DO SO AND STOP WASTING YOUR TIME WITH CREATIONIST LIES. Remember, creationists are lying to you!
In order to fight evolution, you first need to know what it is. So start by learning everything you can about evolution. Pay no attention to what creationists tell you, since they share your abject ignorance of evolution and are feeding you lies, including their utterly false strawman caricature that they call "evolution" but which bears only the most superficial resemblance to evolution.
But if you are too afraid of fighting evolution, then continue to waste your time and effort AND SUFFER THE LOSS OF ALL CREDIBILITY by flailing ineffectively against a made-up creationist boogeyman.
If you want to convince us that you are full of shit, then continue to demonstrate that you are full of shit. If you want to convince us that we should take what you say seriously, then demonstrate that you are not full of shit.
Your choice. And, sadly, we already know which path you will choose: the broad path to Perdition (Matt 7:13).
You want to fight evolution? So fight it already! Stop wasting your time shoveling stupid bullshit that only succeeds in destroying your own position.
To quote from the Pirkei Avot ("Sayings of the Fathers"):
quote:If not now, when?
Edited by dwise1, : message subtitle
Edited by dwise1, : Subtitle: abject -> willful
Edited by dwise1, : corrected minor typo that didn't change the meaning
Even you know that you are on the losing end when all you can do is to inject completely irrelevant stuff.
For once in your benighted life, stay on topic!
ABE: {
Your question is even more irrelevant because THE QUESTION OF HOW SOMETHING EXISTS HAS NO BEARING ON THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT DOES INDEED EXIST. Duh?
It's like that creationist pushing the creationist ozone-layer claim that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) cannot be responsible for depletion of the ozone layer because they're too heavy to get into the upper atmosphere, despite the fact that CFCs have indeed been found there. Despite knowing that his claim was false (ie, he provided a list of "unanswered" questions which I showed him came straight from NOAA's FAQ along with detailed answers to each and every one of the questions he claimed to have been "unanswered" -- like you, he just got the claim from another creationist and never bothered to try to verify it even when I did all the research for him), he chose to post it on his website knowing that it was false and then deliberately chose to repost it in his site's next three incarnations, despite my repeatedly pointing out to him that he was deliberately lying to his readers (to which he always responded by running away). Finally after 11 years he admitted his error and took down that claim, though he still insisted that there are no CFCs in the upper atmosphere solely because he couldn't imagine how they could have gotten there. And yet, there they are! Like Sulu's remark when he unexpectedly shows up in Howard's sex fantasy (from Big Bang Theory):
George Takei:So you say, and yet here I am.
The universe and everything in it exists; there's no question about that and nothing you want to believe or not believe has any effect on that simple fact.
It exists regardless of which of the hundreds of thousands of Creators was involved, or even no Creator at all.
Therefore, your question/challenge is nothing more than the same old stupid bullshit you've been peddling.
If you really want to push the idea of that Creator being your own particular god along with his truckloads of theological baggage then YOU must make that case.
So far, despite almost every single creationist and fundie having tried to use the same argument, NONE of them has ever even tried to make an actual case for THEIR OWN PARTICULAR GOD. None of them and most particularly not you.
}
If you tell me that you are a theistic evolutionists, then there is no reason to focus on abiogenesis.
What the fuck are you babbling about? That conditional statement makes no sense at all.
Besides Y*O*U are the only one who keeps focusing on abiogenesis!
Does that mean that Y*O*U are a theistic evolutionist? If so, then just come out of the closet and say so!
What is so pathologically wrong with you?
Are you a TE?
No, I'm an atheist. Have been for 60 years, so I am saved (from the brain rot that keeps you from being able to engage in any kind of discussion).
As such (unlike you sorry sod) I am able to learn about anything, think about it (no need for constant self-policing of my every thought), evaluate different ideas, and even examine and discuss different ideas. You are forbidden to do any of that, which makes it so impossible to talk with you about anything.
™ Version 4.2
