Replies

I disagree. You should look into the papers that contradict this Denmark study. BTW- This is not the first study out of Denmark that has been debunked. They have a seriously flaw and bias process (kind of like leavening out the absentee ballots from the military personnel overseas.)

If you really wanted to know you would read these studies and counter research papers and not take the word of only those that have a one desired outcome (I believe at least one was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.) The counter research has been peer reviewed and yes, there is disagreement on both side of the debate. Anyone who says it is conclusive is lying through their teeth. I am not a scientist but the case made against the Denmark study sounds pretty darn good to me.

All that aside, I am against the killing of innocent humans. Any doctor will tell you that scientifically the fetus is all human and separate from the mother before they even know they are pregnant. It is not a tumor nor a abnormal growth. It is a person and the only way to justify killing it is to know when and if a soul enters the body making it a sentient being or some other provable and great enough separation from the basic human race. Since that cannot be proven it is always wrong to kill a child.

Would we kill any other segment of the population only to benefit another segment with no extreme circumstances (most abortions are not preformed to save a mothers life (2%? I might be wrong) they are preformed because the mother does not want the baby for some reason or another)?

Would you say it is okay to kill selected old people? Many would benefit from this. If not, why and what is the differance?

I used to assume religious people were all above board and honest as a part of their spiritual calling. But that is not the case. Not by a long shot. So when you say there is bias and agenda driven behavior on the other side which raises doubts about the veracity of their research, I'd have to point the finger right back at the anti-abortion crusaders.

I am constantly amazed (if that is the right word) at the amount of dissembling I see coming out of religious advocates for their particular agenda.

So I am disinclined to trust any "report" advocated by religionists anymore. They serve a "greater good" and truth is a secondary consideration.

I'm aware that people on all sides can be dishonest, but now I have to ask particulars -- in what way was the Denmark study dishonest. Haven't seen anyone post a good rebuttal here.

I don't think one cell is a human. I don't think two cells are a human. They may be human cells, but they do not constitute a human. I don't think eight cells are a human.

You can take that series pretty far before there is something resembling a human. I am not aware of any religious anti-abortion advocates who accept the notion that one, two, four, eight, sixteen celled clumps are NOT yet human. It is clearly a religious/soul view -- not an ethical/scientifically grounded view.