Creationism kills babies

[giza]

More about this can be read in 6-bleen-7's LiveJournal entry on the subject.

I find it interesting how the religious right is all up in arms about abortions, but apparently has no problems whatsoever with modern medicine, being based on as much science as it is.

Comments

[drleo.livejournal.com]

And I find the dad's name is "Jim Bob," and they live in Arkansas. You can't make this stuff up.

[wolffit.livejournal.com]

That's because you're ignorant of the issues. :-)

It is not science that right(correct)-thinking religion has a problem with. Science and religion are not, or should not be, at odds with each other. Science seeks to explain the physical world. Religion seeks to explain the spiritual, which transcends the physical.

The "religious right" (without getting into a discussion of what term means) is opposed to abortion not because of the science behind it, but because of the spiritual behind it. The willful taking of an innocent human life is abhorrent to our society. We send people to jail for committing murder. We charge people with murder for causing a miscarriage against the mother's will. We charge people with murder for killing their children minutes after they are born. And yet, if the mother decides, before the baby is born, to kill it? Why, that "right" must be protected at all costs.

Remember: Just because the Church (without getting into a discussion, etc. etc.) claims it represents God's will, does not mean it does.

I write this post in the name of Giza.

-Galen

[wolffit.livejournal.com]

And in case you missed it: Just because I claimed to write that post in the name of Giza, does not mean Giza told me to, or even agrees with what I wrote.

[giza.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I wasn't being clear in my reference to abortion. I'm aware that the "religious right" is opposed to abortion because they think it's murder, and not because of any scientific issues.

What I was trying to get at is that the creationists are going on and on about how the world is really only a few thousand years old, that God put us here, and so on and so forth, and they don't seem to care for science at all. Yet, they have no problems with benefiting from modern medicine, without which, they would be suffering/dying from all sorts of (easily curable) illnesses and conditions.

Looking back over my post, I could have definitely worded it better, though. Sorry for the confusion.

[wolffit.livejournal.com]

*nods* Confusion understood, and swept under the carpet. Isn't it nice to be able to have a rational conversation about controversial issues? (of course my 'ignorant' comment was kinda uncalled for)

Creationism and evolution are not, necessarily, incompatible theories. One has a basis in scientific understanding, and the other has a basis in an attempt to understand and explain the spiritual side of our world. One can hold to the spiritual without ignoring the scientific. I believe that God created the world, and that belief keeps open the possibility that God created humans in the world, with the capacity to create or manipulate things within that world. Did God create the world in 7 revolutions of the earth around its axis? Who knows? "Days" do not even have the same meaning on other planets, let alone in a universe before the earth existed. The concept of a "day" is man-made. It is a convenient name to give for the duration of a repetitive event, or the passage of time between two events. The 7 "days" of creation may well have spanned millions of rotations of the earth around the sun.

I won't claim that evolution did not happen. It's entirely likely / possible that it did. Maybe even in some manner roughly in line with current scientific thought. But then, scientific thought changes over time.

atom, n.
(a) An ultimate indivisible particle of matter.
(b) An ultimate particle of matter not necessarily indivisible

-Galen

[giza.livejournal.com]

> Creationism and evolution are not, necessarily, incompatible theories.

Yeah, you're not the first religious person who has mentioned that and personally, I have no problem with that viewpoint.

The thing that has gotten me polarized about creationism are the people who are trying to *replace* science (or the teaching of evolution, at least) with it. I think it does our youth a big disservice to not give them a proper education.[1]

I could rant about that some more, but Isaac Azimov does a good job of covering some key points over here (http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/asimov.html).

[1] That being said, I had both a scientific upbringing and a religious upbringing as a kid. I went to school during the week and went to church on Sundays. That gave me the luxury of making an informed choice in my later teen years whether I wanted to be scientific, religious, or both. In my case, I chose just the first one.

Creationism is not a theory

[denimwizard.livejournal.com]

Theories can only be called theories because there is alot of data to support it. Or the math supports it too. To my knowledge there is no observable data that supports the idea of creationism.

Thank you.

[cyriljackal.livejournal.com]

The reason is, it keeps their old asses alive, as the send the young off to die for things we won't be able to send other young ones off to die for in our old age.
Jazz was satanic once. So was Elvis. Rock and Roll too.
Television. Writing at one point was evil too I'm sure.
Some people, those in power, seek to halt progress so they are the end-times winner. Pure selfishness.

[tgeller.livejournal.com]

First off, I share your distaste for evangelicals generally, particularly those whose evangelism leads to dangerous and socially draining practices.

But it's a straw man to say that creationists are "against science". Some are computer engineers, meteorologists, chemists, and -- yes -- physicians.

But let me draw a parallel. System administrators can disagree over backup procedures, and some of them can be provably wrong. That doesn't mean that the "wrong" ones do *everything* wrong, or dismiss evidence in other areas of their fields.

Again, I'm not arguing with the overall assertion that "creationism is stupid", just that one rhetorical technique.

[giza.livejournal.com]

> But it's a straw man to say that creationists are "against science". Some
> are computer engineers, meteorologists, chemists, and -- yes -- physicians.

This is news to me. I had no idea it was the case.

[crywolf.livejournal.com]

Google for "doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control". The results are scary. Every single doctor who refuses to prescribe birth control and every single pharmacist who refuses to fill the prescription on "moral" grounds needs their license revoked. And be forced to write out the hippocratic oath 100 times.

[giza.livejournal.com]

Holy crap, you're right!

> And be forced to write out the hippocratic oath 100 times.

Unfortunately, they'd probably make the argument that they are trying to prevent harm to the fetus, at least for those who refuse to prescribe "day after pills".

[tgeller.livejournal.com]

Quite right. While I disagree strongly with their position, it *is* defensible -- at least from a Hippocratic point of view.

In fact, abortion is in direct contradiction to the Hippocratic Oath! See the (translated) text, which includes "...Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion."

[tgeller.livejournal.com]

"...Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion."

"...Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion."

"...Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion."

...etc.

I agree with your position, but your argument is wrong. The Hippocratic Oath specifically forbids doctors to perform abortions. (At least via pessary, but I think that's splitting hairs.)

[giza.livejournal.com]

But what happens when the pregnancy puts the mother's life in danger?

[tgeller.livejournal.com]

Of course that's a whole other discussion, and a hot debate among anti-abortionists. I think Hippocrates would say to kill the mother and save the child.

(As an aside, that's supported by three pieces of Hippocrates-era thinking: (a) More life-years gained; (b) the prohibition of abortion overall; and (c) the possibility of it being a male child, outweighing the woman's life-value. Countering that, of course, would be sentiment for the woman.)

[zeeth_kyrah]

A stone pessary will slowly crush the fetus when it grows large enough. An herbal or poisonous pessary for abortion can make the woman sick or dead.

So you shouldn't crush the fetus beyond a certain size, and you shouldn't use poisons... hey, "beyond a certain size": the trimester-based out.

But really, that's a legalistic interpretation, ignoring the spirit of the oath.

[tgeller.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the additional info. I'd never considered a *stone* pessary. What creative monkeys we are!