Scientific Abortion Laws

Scientific Abortion Laws

The natural abortion laws site

It is settled, the Pro life movement admits to causing the death of babies.

All of the tenets of the “Law of Charity” are now conceded by the pro life movement to be valid and few arguments remain. The pro life movement in general has admitted to killing born life and all that remains to be discussed are peripheral issues. The following admissions are jointly agreed to and are no longer an issue for debate:

1. There are in fact 7 billion +/- born people on Earth and all are dying. They are dying at 1.8 per second (57 million per year) and are being born at the rate of 4.2 per second ( 137 million per year). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

2. There are only two forms of human life on Earth that can be saved, born life and unborn life.

3. Each individual has a choice, they may save one of the 7 billion born people that are dying or an unborn zygote/embryo/fetus.

4. One may pass a law that says only born people shall be saved or they may pass a law that says only unborn life shall be saved or they may pass a law that says both born and unborn must be saved. Regardless in the end each individual must choose whom to save, the born or the unborn.

5. It is impossible to save all human life, all life dies. New life that will begin dying, after birth occurs, is being born at more than twice the rate of those dying. So there will always be more people dying than can be saved.

6. Each person that claims to save life must choose whom they will save, either the born person or the unborn person.  No person or group of people can save all born life.

7. If a person chooses to save a born life, an unborn life will die, if they choose to save an unborn life, a born life will die.

8. An unborn life may or may not live to birth, the odds of living to birth are less than 30 percent for each fertilized oocyte. http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm

9. A person may use triage to save the most life possible.

10. A person that chooses to save “Life at conception” will fail to save life 70 percent of the time.

11. A person that chooses to save born life has a greater chance of saving life than a person that chooses to save a “life at conception.”
The issue that remains to be resolved is as follows:

It is my contention that the pro life movement is intentionally letting innocent born life die in an  effort to force the birth of fetuses. The only issue that remains is whether or not the loss of life caused by the pro life movement is intentional or unintentional. It is my contention that all points of the “Law of Charity” have been proved for more than 2 years and therefore the deaths caused by the pro life movement are in fact intentional deaths.

 

 

 

 

394 Responses to It is settled, the Pro life movement admits to causing the death of babies.

  1. I started reading with virtually no agenda, simply an interest in a unique perspective.

    Russell, do you know what a fallacy is? This website. More specifically this particular argument for abortion or rather against life. I’m trying to comprehend what passes for science on here, but I’m afraid that I’m not a witless retard. Perhaps your expertise in that area can enlighten me.

    life=death, abortion=death; therefore, abortion>life. Is this what you are invoking?

    Of course people die. Everybody dies. That doesn’t mean they were destroyed by another’s hand or should be at any point. The very definition of ‘abortion’ in this context is ending life (specifically before it passes through a bodily opening, normally the vagina). At best your argument is that not curing mortality is less than or equal to terminating what would have been a person. So just kill ‘em all before they have a chance to die. Is this what you are telling me and the rest of the internet? Essentially from what I gather, after re-reading your nonsense 4 times, my understanding is “since abortions are happening at a slightly slower pace than birth/death, we should just give up and kill all fetuses so no one ever again has to live and die. Just end the human race because… gobbledygook.

    This is just one aspect of this ludicrous, pretentious sanctimoniousness. You can only save one or the other? Come again? Is there a premise to this argument or statement which you do not disclose? I’ve read what you are saying, including the comments, and you make no logical connection of reasoning. I could go on, and on, and on about this twaddle. It almost seems as though your stance is not so much pro-abortion as it is pro genocide, using abortion as the means.

    What your argument doesn’t address is commonsense. Life is sacred and worth every effort of trying to save, no matter the outcome. The other point missing is the differences between miscarriage and abortion: intention. Outcome is the same for all life: death. Then does choice matter either way? A miscarriage is generally unwanted, the “choice” is made for the mother, father, and child. Abortion is caused directly and purposefully by the mother, her “choice”.

    In conclusion, your contention is an eschewal of logic and morals. A cop-out, a fallacy presumptuously based on something undesirable from the counterpoint. Maybe I’m wrong and this all just an academic exercise in rhetoric, because I don’t know anybody in my life time who is this ignorant or egotistically deluded. Or perhaps you are just trolling for hits on your site.

    No one need reply. This was partially rhetorical, however I am genuinely curious in understanding. Hey, “the more you know…”

    Permalink
    • “I started reading with virtually no agenda, simply an interest in a unique perspective.”

      Well from what I can tell you are confused. Perhaps I can help.

      “Russell, do you know what a fallacy is?”

      Yes a fallacy must be identified and be proved. Have you found what you believe is a fallacy?

      ” This website. More specifically this particular argument for abortion or rather against life.”

      The website and the argument for abortion or against life is not a fallacy.

      “I’m trying to comprehend what passes for science on here, but I’m afraid that I’m not a witless retard. Perhaps your expertise in that area can enlighten me.”

      In what way?

      “life=death, abortion=death; therefore, abortion>life. Is this what you are invoking?”

      No, and there is no way a rational person can read that into what I have posted.

      “Of course people die. Everybody dies. That doesn’t mean they were destroyed by another’s hand or should be at any point.”

      That is one root of your lack of understanding. My claim is pretty clear. I claim that two types of life are dying, born life and unborn life. They will both die if not saved. One may choose to save born life or they may choose to save unborn life, cut they cannot save all born life if they choose to save unborn life, even once. Your statement that one is destroyed by the hand of another is false. The destruction of life is by “murder by omission” not “murder by commission.” The hand is not an active element, the mind and the choice cause the death.

      ” The very definition of ‘abortion’ in this context is ending life (specifically before it passes through a bodily opening, normally the vagina).”

      But it is not the ending of human life. Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no human life.

      ” At best your argument is that not curing mortality is less than or equal to terminating what would have been a person.”

      No, that is a mischaracterization of what I say. I say a human life and a product of conception are dying. Pro lifers have a duty to save human life, because that is what they claim to do. But when given the opportunity to save innocent babies, they make the choice to let the babies die. They do not raise their hand to murder, they kill by making the choice to let dying life die.

      ” So just kill ‘em all before they have a chance to die. Is this what you are telling me and the rest of the internet?”

      No, I am saying save innocent life, do not kill a born baby to save a fetus.

      “Essentially from what I gather, after re-reading your nonsense 4 times, my understanding is “since abortions are happening at a slightly slower pace than birth/death, we should just give up and kill all fetuses so no one ever again has to live and die. Just end the human race because… gobbledygook.”

      I can tell you are confused. But you need to read carefully and try to understand what is happening. Life is already dying, a real baby and a product of conception. I am saying to save the real life, until all real life is saved. Then if you have time save a fetus. The problem is that you will never have time to save a fetus, because all life dies.

      “This is just one aspect of this ludicrous, pretentious sanctimoniousness.”

      Just because you are incapable of understanding that pro lifer murder babies, it does not mean that it is ludicrous or pretentious. It simply mean you were not blessed with the ability to understand what others understand.

      ” You can only save one or the other? Come again? Is there a premise to this argument or statement which you do not disclose?”

      No, it is all disclosed. You need to read before you comment. There are 7 billion people on Earth. They are all dying. In fact they are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. You cannot save them all, why, because they all die. So if you are required to save life, you must choose which of the 7 billion you will save or if you will let them die and save a fetus instead. Pro lifers make the intentional choice to let born life die. What is your choice?

      ” I’ve read what you are saying, including the comments, and you make no logical connection of reasoning. I could go on, and on, and on about this twaddle. It almost seems as though your stance is not so much pro-abortion as it is pro genocide, using abortion as the means.”

      The beliefs I espouse will lead to saving the most human life that can be saved.

      “What your argument doesn’t address is commonsense. ”
      It is good common sense to save innocent babies and not kill them to save fetuses.

      “Life is sacred and worth every effort of trying to save, no matter the outcome.”
      I so save sacred life and you murder sacred life. Pro lifers murder innocent babies to save fetuses. That is insane.

      “The other point missing is the differences between miscarriage and abortion: intention.”

      A person that makes the intentional choice to have sex has made the intentional choice to abort 70 percent of all conceptions that result from that sex. Miscarriage is intentional.

      “Outcome is the same for all life: death. Then does choice matter either way?”

      Yes, a person may choose to save life and let it live longer or let it die. Pro lifers make the intentional choice to let babies die.

      “A miscarriage is generally unwanted, the “choice” is made for the mother, father, and child.”

      Nearly every woman is aware that there is a chance of miscarriage before sex. So any choice to have sex is consent to abortion. The choice to abort is by the consenting parties.

      “Abortion is caused directly and purposefully by the mother, her “choice”.”

      Yes, a woman that intentionally chooses to have sex has consented to abortion.

      “In conclusion, your contention is an eschewal of logic and morals.”
      My contention is that the most human life possible should be saved and therefore a choice to kill babies to save fetuses is a poor choice.
      ” A cop-out, a fallacy presumptuously based on something undesirable from the counterpoint. ”

      There is no fallacy. Your straw man arguments don’t lay the ground work and your ad hominem fallacies show you have no interest in the truth. .

      “Maybe I’m wrong and this all just an academic exercise in rhetoric, because I don’t know anybody in my life time who is this ignorant or egotistically deluded. Or perhaps you are just trolling for hits on your site.”

      That is an ad hominem fallacy and is proof you have no valid argument.

      {No one need reply. This was partially rhetorical, however I am genuinely curious in understanding. Hey, “the more you know…”}

      It would be refreshing to see you learn from our exchange. Most pro lifers simply go away and continue to murder innocent babies.

      Permalink
  2. There’s a frustrated anarcho-libertarian at Reason.com that doesn’t like you. His continued inability to publish his self-centered rants here is effecting his sanity so much so that he is confessing his ineffectuality to his fellow anarcho-libertarians. It’s funny. You’re making the puppet dance!

    TEASER
    “OT: I just went over to naturalabortionlaws.com
    and made a long and exceeding good point about how wrong that crazy [EXPLETIVE] really is….I
    saved it to a text file so that I can just keep sending it over and
    over again until he relents or bans my IP address…”

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/28/ann-coulter-doesnt-like-soccer-because-l#comment_4604154

    Permalink
    • Hey now, that’s ME you’re absolutely right about!

      Well, sorta. I’m a bit of a troll. And I haven’t had a chance to do this dance in quite a while.

      Seriously, I’m friggin digging it! This crap has been like a direct IV of sugar to the pleasure center of my brain.

      . . . . . . . . . .trololololololol

      Permalink
      • As I told you on reason.com. You are welcome to post here if you do not use fallacies.

        Permalink
  3. longchamp soldes

    their including Issue is using LG ELECTRONICS Times observe RD400, each week rear in error a number of records as well as declare a number of system data as well as operators say wiped now when i actually wordpress tool LOCAL AREA NETWORK twine portabl…

    Permalink
  4. Chaussures Louboutin France

    Hello George, I would like that people encounter this within the indigenous surroundings inside the GetListed. org Resource place instead of upon third-party personal blogs. I am aware this specific operates counter-top to most best practices for sprea…

    Permalink
  5. http://djula.fr/wp-content/abercrombie-fitch/

    An excellent tunes web site, in my opinion, is one which has ALMOST EVERYTHING, and this includes this new music. I have checked each site, the only two that happen to be value enough time tend to be 8tracks along with Grooveshark.

    Permalink
  6. louboutin pas cher

    Grooveshark gave me a terrible virus this pushed my family for you to reformat my very own >12 30 days older mobile computer and now it doesn’t do the job the identical. It turned out any fanatic point yet We have observed other folks say the same wit…

    Permalink
  7. “7. If a person chooses to save a born life, an unborn life will die, if they choose to save an unborn life, a born life will die.”
    Ridiculous!

    Permalink
    • The fact is that you may choose to save one or the other. You cannot save both, because born life is dying faster than you can save it. And if you simply pass a law making it illegal to abort, then you have placed the life of a fetus above the life of a born person and the born person will die. To be fair you must make a law that says that neither born life nor unborn life can be allowed to die. And because all the born life currently cannot be saved, neither can the born and unborn life. So in the end you would end up allowing born life die to save unborn life.

      Now if you have some way of saving both, please share it.

      Permalink
      • you can choose to save 1.8 lives every second, or you can spend those seconds posting on the internet.

        how many hundreds of thousands of people have died because of your misplaced priorities, russell?

        Permalink
        • Thanks for responding. The fact is that I am saving the maximum number of lives that can be saved by stopping pro lifers from murdering babies.
          I invite you to stop intentionally killing babies and join me in saving life.

          Permalink
  8. jordan 9 retro barons

    Tad, back in 1863, who subsequently named the bird Jack and let him walk the

    Permalink
  9. I am starting a new post to make it easier to follow the discussion.

    You still do not understand the disconnect between your law and theory. You keep asserting that you have proven your theory due to the law, but this is not true. I have already explained repeatedly why, but you have not yet understood. I will break it down to make it clear.

    a)Your “law” states that life cannot be saved indefinitely. It is impossible to save life forever. That is the premise.
    b) You try to use this to argue that all people are dying, and therfore need to be saved. In essence, there are 7 billion people who can potentially be saved for a short period of time.
    c) you then assert that there is a choice taht must be made. A person must choose who to save because he or she cannot save both.

    This is where the problem comes in. The context of your law and the context of your theory are completely unrelated. The fact that people cannot be saved forever has no relavence to whether or not people can be saved for a short time.

    Your choice essentially is asserting that at any given second in time, the ability of humanity to save life in the short term is either equal to or less than the amount of born life that can be saved in the short term. This must be a truth in order for your choice to be valid. If the ability of humanity to save life in the short term was greater than the potential need for saving, then the choice would no longer be valid, as there would be an excess of ability that could be put towards saving the unborn without killing life. This is what you have failed to either understand or acknowledge.

    What I have repeatedly asked you to do is to prove that this is a truth. Prove that the ability of people to save life in the short term in any given second is less than the potential life taht can be saved in any given second.

    You have tried to answer this by refering back to your law, but the law doesn’t satisfy the problem. It says nothing about the potential to save life in the short term. You have also tried to answer this by saying that every second, 1.8 people die, and every second spent saving a fetus causes these 1.8 people to die.

    But this is not prove that the 1.8 people who die in a given second can actually be saved. Your choice doesn’t account for people who a) can’t be saved, b) don’t want to be saved, and c) don’t need to be saved. The reality is that in any given second, there are not 7 billion people who can be saved. The number is smaller.

    You also have not provided any evidence or proof of the abilty of humanity to save life in the short term. How can you claim that people cannot save both unborn and born life when you do not know the extent to which people can save life in the short term? Understand that the response that :”everybody dies,” is inadequate, because that is a different context. That is an irrelavent fact when dealing with the ability of people to save life in the short term.

    You also do not know the extent to which the 7 billion people on earth can actually be saved in the short term. You have tried to answer this by saying that all need to be saved. That is possibly be true over the course of time, but it isn’t true in any given second. You also do not know what actions are required to save all life in the short term. You can’t know if any given actions actually saved life in the short term or not. You dont’ know who can be saved and who cannot. Sure, you can try to argue that 7 billion “need” to be saved, but that doesn’t mean that 7 billion “can” be saved. You don’t know how many can be saved, or how to save them.

    Obviously, the two major factors that would confirm the truth of your choice are unknown. I have asked you repeatedly to provide evidence that demosntrates the truth of this, but you keep saying that you don’t need to provide it. You claim that all that matters is the choice, but what you fail to understand is that the choice is dependent upon this data to be true.

    Another issure that I will address is your belief that every second, 1.8 people die. I have already demonstrated that this statement must be false, as .8 of people cannot die. But besides this, the statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature of birth and death rates. Let me explain how these are calculated, and you will see why the statement is false.

    Birth and death rates are not averages of births that are happening in real time. They are ratios that are used to represent what has occured in a given time frame. The way that these ratios are calculated makes this obvious. Let me explain.

    Suppose that in a given population, people are dying. At the end of two months, scientists count the number of people who die. Let’s just say it’s 1000. So in two months, 1000 people die. The first step in creating a death rate ratio is to create a ratio of the final data. In this case, taht would be 1000 people per two months. Understand, however, that this ratio is not a governing principle. This doesn’t mean that every two months, 1000 people will die. It’s just a representative figure. The next step is to break this down into other ratios. The death rate is then calculated by taking this total and creating ratios, by converting the variables into different measurement units. In the case of my example, the number of deaths per day would be 16.6. This could be converted to teh number of deaths per hour, which is 1.44. This again could be converted to deaths per minute, which is .02. This could then be converted to seconds, which 4.01×10-4.

    What you falsely do, is assert that a death rate is a real-time representation of the deaths that occur. As I have demonstrated, this is not the case. Obviously, .02 people can’t die every minute. Birth and death rates don’t present any real-time data. In my example, the 1000 people could have died in teh same day, or in the same week. It’s impossible to know from the death rate.

    This is important to your theory because you try to argue that every second spent saving a fetus causes the death of 1.8 born people by way of letting them die. What I have just demonstrated is that 1.8 born people are not necessarily dying every second. You don’t know how many people die in any given second, you can’t make this claim. Unless, of course, you go through the death records of the world population, record and record all of the deaths on a timeline, and then check every second of the year to see how many people actually died in each.

    You claim that life can be saved for a short time. You also argue, however, that it is impossible to save born life for a short time while also saving babies.

    The You try to prove this by sayign that there will always be born people who need saving. This is a statement you havent’ proven.

    Permalink
    • “I am starting a new post to make it easier to follow the discussion.”

      Please keep the posts short from now on.

      “You still do not understand the disconnect between your law and theory. You keep asserting that you have proven your theory due to the law, but this is not true.”
      You are right, it is not true, I have not asserted that the theory is proved due to the law.
      The theory is based on the law.
      ” I have already explained repeatedly why, but you have not yet understood. I will break it down to make it clear.”
      If you are attempting to explain why the theory is not proved by the law, it is a waste of your time, the readers’ time and mine.

      “a)Your “law” states that life cannot be saved indefinitely. It is impossible to save life forever. That is the premise. ”

      No, the premise is that there are more people dying than can be saved.
      “b) You try to use this to argue that all people are dying, and therfore need to be saved.”
      I am not arguing, I am stating a fact.
      “In essence, there are 7 billion people who can potentially be saved for a short period of time.”
      I do not limit it to a short period of time.

      “c) you then assert that there is a choice taht must be made. A person must choose who to save because he or she cannot save both.”
      That is a fact, not an assertion.

      “This is where the problem comes in. The context of your law and the context of your theory are completely unrelated.”
      No, the theory is based upon the law.
      “The fact that people cannot be saved forever has no relavence to whether or not people can be saved for a short time.”
      Yes it does. If you can save people forever, then there is no need to save them for a short time.

      “Your choice essentially is asserting that at any given second in time, the ability of humanity to save life in the short term is either equal to or less than the amount of born life that can be saved in the short term.”
      No my theory is that a person must choose whom to save.
      “This must be a truth in order for your choice to be valid.”
      It has no impact. If there are people to save, you are one person, and if you claim to save life and want to save life and you must choose whom to save.
      ” If the ability of humanity to save life in the short term was greater than the potential need for saving, then the choice would no longer be valid, as there would be an excess of ability that could be put towards saving the unborn without killing life.”
      If you want to make a theory that incorporates that idea, then go for it. But it is not required in the law or theory.
      ” This is what you have failed to either understand or acknowledge. ”
      I understand it completely. It is irrelevant.

      “What I have repeatedly asked you to do is to prove that this is a truth.”
      What you said is not the truth. So why try to prove it?
      “Prove that the ability of people to save life in the short term in any given second is less than the potential life taht can be saved in any given second.”
      If there is life to save in any given second, you must choose which life to save if you are pro life. That is all my law and theory deal with. The capacity to save life is irrelevant. All that matters is the choice.

      “You have tried to answer this by refering back to your law, but the law doesn’t satisfy the problem.”
      I don’t believe I have tried to answer any question like that. My belief is that your question is irrelevant as it deals with resources and resources do not matter.
      “It says nothing about the potential to save life in the short term.”
      Potential to save life would be based upon resources, and resources have no impact on choice.
      ” You have also tried to answer this by saying that every second, 1.8 people die, and every second spent saving a fetus causes these 1.8 people to die.”
      My point is that you have a choice of which to save, the fetus or the baby. If you choose to save the fetus, the baby dies and if you choose to save the baby, the fetus dies.

      “But this is not prove that the 1.8 people who die in a given second can actually be saved.”
      I don’t care if they can be saved, the law only deals with the choice of whom to save.
      “Your choice doesn’t account for people who a) can’t be saved, b) don’t want to be saved, and c) don’t need to be saved. The reality is that in any given second, there are not 7 billion people who can be saved. The number is smaller. ”
      No, there are 7 billion people dying you may choose any of those that are dying and attempt to save them. That is all the law and theory deals with, the choice.

      “You also have not provided any evidence or proof of the abilty of humanity to save life in the short term.”
      It doesn’t matter.
      “How can you claim that people cannot save both unborn and born life when you do not know the extent to which people can save life in the short term?”
      I only deal with the choice to save life. If they choose to save a fetus, they cannot at the same instant save a baby. They may choose one or the other. The one they don’t choose does not receive the benefit of their help.
      “Understand that the response that :”everybody dies,” is inadequate, because that is a different context.”
      The response “everybody dies” is a scientific fact.
      “That is an irrelavent fact when dealing with the ability of people to save life in the short term.”
      The ability to save life in the short term is not part of the law. It was a response to your claim that life cannot be saved eternally. The law simply deals with the fact that more people are dying than can be saved and the theory deals with the fact that one must choose whom to save. Your other ideas are yours not mine.

      “You also do not know the extent to which the 7 billion people on earth can actually be saved in the short term.”
      It doesn’t matter. The law and theory deal with choice.
      “You have tried to answer this by saying that all need to be saved. ”
      I am dealing with anything, I am stating a fact.
      “That is possibly be true over the course of time, but it isn’t true in any given second. ”
      It is always true.
      “You also do not know what actions are required to save all life in the short term.”
      The laws and theories don’t deal with what is required to save life, it doesn’t matter and has no impact on the laws or theory.
      ” You can’t know if any given actions actually saved life in the short term or not.”
      It doesn’t matter if they did
      ” You dont’ know who can be saved and who cannot. Sure, you can try to argue that 7 billion “need” to be saved, but that doesn’t mean that 7 billion “can” be saved. You don’t know how many can be saved, or how to save them.”
      It doesn’t matter.

      “Obviously, the two major factors that would confirm the truth of your choice are unknown. I have asked you repeatedly to provide evidence that demosntrates the truth of this, but you keep saying that you don’t need to provide it. You claim that all that matters is the choice, but what you fail to understand is that the choice is dependent upon this data to be true.”
      The choice is not dependent on anything.

      “Another issure that I will address is your belief that every second, 1.8 people die. I have already demonstrated that this statement must be false, as .8 of people cannot die. But besides this, the statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature of birth and death rates. Let me explain how these are calculated, and you will see why the statement is false.”
      that doesn’t matter either. It is just an example, examples change.

      “Birth and death rates are not averages of births that are happening in real time. They are ratios that are used to represent what has occured in a given time frame. The way that these ratios are calculated makes this obvious. Let me explain.”
      That is irrelevant.

      “Suppose that in a given population, people are dying. At the end of two months, scientists count the number of people who die. Let’s just say it’s 1000. So in two months, 1000 people die. The first step in creating a death rate ratio is to create a ratio of the final data. In this case, taht would be 1000 people per two months. Understand, however, that this ratio is not a governing principle. This doesn’t mean that every two months, 1000 people will die. It’s just a representative figure. The next step is to break this down into other ratios. The death rate is then calculated by taking this total and creating ratios, by converting the variables into different measurement units. In the case of my example, the number of deaths per day would be 16.6. This could be converted to teh number of deaths per hour, which is 1.44. This again could be converted to deaths per minute, which is .02. This could then be converted to seconds, which 4.01×10-4. ”
      That is also irrelevant.

      “What you falsely do, is assert that a death rate is a real-time representation of the deaths that occur. As I have demonstrated, this is not the case. Obviously, .02 people can’t die every minute. Birth and death rates don’t present any real-time data. In my example, the 1000 people could have died in teh same day, or in the same week. It’s impossible to know from the death rate.”
      That is irrelevant.

      “This is important to your theory because you try to argue that every second spent saving a fetus causes the death of 1.8 born people by way of letting them die.”
      That has no impact on the theory or law. It is part of an example.
      The actual numbers of death that will happen in the next 1 second are not known and are irrelevant.
      ” What I have just demonstrated is that 1.8 born people are not necessarily dying every second. You don’t know how many people die in any given second, you can’t make this claim. Unless, of course, you go through the death records of the world population, record and record all of the deaths on a timeline, and then check every second of the year to see how many people actually died in each.”
      That is irrelevant.

      “You claim that life can be saved for a short time. You also argue, however, that it is impossible to save born life for a short time while also saving babies.”
      It doesn’t matter if live can or cannot be saved short term or long term.
      All that matters is your choice.

      “The You try to prove this by sayign that there will always be born people who need saving. This is a statement you havent’ proven.”
      The comments I made in response to your questions were simply arguments against your ideas, not in defense of the laws or theory. Your ideas are flawed any time they imply that the choice is dependent on anything other than a the choice itself. I will continue to point out your flaws with examples and I will continue to state that 1,8 born people are dying because those are important tools that make it easy for people to understand they are murdering life. The law does not depend on whether or not any life is saved.

      Permalink
      • You still do not understand the error of your reasoning. I will explain.

        “No, the premise is that there are more people dying than can be saved.”

        You are getting confused by your own wording. I’ve already explained that since you use the word “saved” to mean “saving forever,” then the comparitive wording of this is useless. If the world population was one, then there would be more people dying than can be saved. Under this idea, nobody can be saved. So it’s stupid to compare the number of people dying vs. the number who can be saved when the number who can be saved is 0. All your law states is that people can’t live forever. That’s it.

        “You try to use this to argue that all people are dying, and therfore need to be saved.”
        I am not arguing, I am stating a fact.”

        This is not a fact. People don’t need to be saved. I’ve already proven this. There is nothing that requires the need for human life to exist. Suggesting a need to be saved brings in moral implications that science cannot prove. The proper wording would be “there are 7 billion people who can be potentially saved for a limited time.”

        Your choice essentially is asserting that at any given second in time, the ability of humanity to save life in the short term is either equal to or less than the amount of born life that can be saved in the short term.”

        “No my theory is that a person must choose whom to save.”

        Here’s the problem. You don’t ever prove that all people cannot be saved for a limited time. You claim there is a choice that must be made. But you haven’t proven that the choice results in a deth because you disregard the variables that would make this true.

        I will use my previous example to illustrate the issue:

        Woman A’s fetus is about to die and Person B is hanging from a cliff, both lives are in danger of death. Person C comes in and decides to save life. He runs over to person A and saves the fetus. He then runs to person B and pulls him up. He saves both people. There is no need to make a choice unless both people are going to die within a time frame that would not allow Person C to save both.

        You claim that choosing to save life A causes the death of life B, because a person is choosing not save life B, therefore causing death. The only way this could be true is if time prevents both people from being saved. Time, then, is a crucial resource on which the consequences of your theory is dependent. If you want to claim that saving one life causes the death of another, you have to prove that the deaths that occur are actually a result of the lack of time to save everyone. The fact that everyone dies is irrelavent. The number of people who are dying doesn’t matter. What does matter is whether or not there is enough time to save them. You need to prove this in order to prove that saving one is letting another die. You cannot deny this.

        I know you think that 1.8 people die every second, but that ultimately is irrelevant. Besides the fact that I have already proven this to be untrue, the other issue you have to deal with is the fact that there is not only one person who is trying to save 2 lives. If there are two lives in danger, and two people available to save those lives, then the choice becomes moot. One person saves one life, and the other person saves teh second life. No life is lost. So again, the consequence of your choice is dependent on how many people are available to save life.

        So your statement that “choosing to save one life causes teh death of a born person” is entirely dependent the ability of humanity to save life for a limited time. You would have to prove that humanity’s ability to save life for a limited time is less than the total number of instances in which life can be saved for a limited of time. Only then, could you claim that the choice results in death.

        “f there is life to save in any given second, you must choose which life to save if you are pro life. That is all my law and theory deal with. The capacity to save life is irrelevant. All that matters is the choice.”

        Problem is, as I have shown, you haven’t proven that saving one life guarantees the death of another. The choice only matters if it actually causes death.

        How can you claim that people cannot save both unborn and born life when you do not know the extent to which people can save life in the short term?”

        “I only deal with the choice to save life. If they choose to save a fetus, they cannot at the same instant save a baby. They may choose one or the other. The one they don’t choose does not receive the benefit of their help.”

        But this does not mean that the other does not receive the help needed. Another person can save the life of the baby. The problem with your idea is the claim you make that choosing one allows the other to die. You haven’t proven this. Of course people have a choice about who to save, but the choice doesn’t matter unless you can prove that choosing one actually causes the death of another. And this is what you have failed to do.

        “It doesn’t matter. The law and theory deal with choice.”

        Actually, only the theory deals with choice. In your law, there is no possible choice. You cannot save anyone forever. Therefore, there is no choice to save. You use the context of “save forever” in your law. This is impossible, so there is no possible choice to save. It is not an option. Only your theory deals with a choice.

        ” If you choose to save the fetus, the baby dies and if you choose to save the baby, the fetus dies.”

        This is what you have failed to prove. This statement is the part of your theory that is dependend upon many variables. All of which you have no supporting evidence for.

        “You claim that life can be saved for a short time. You also argue, however, that it is impossible to save born life for a short time while also saving babies.”
        It doesn’t matter if live can or cannot be saved short term or long term.
        All that matters is your choice.”

        It should be obvious why this is a foolish statement. If life cannot be saved in either the short or long term, then you can’t make the choice to save it. You can’t make a choice that isn’t possible to do. I can’t choose to save life is saving life is impossible. So yes, it does matter.

        “What I have just demonstrated is that 1.8 born people are not necessarily dying every second. You don’t know how many people die in any given second, you can’t make this claim. Unless, of course, you go through the death records of the world population, record and record all of the deaths on a timeline, and then check every second of the year to see how many people actually died in each.”

        “That is irrelevant.”

        It is relavent, because time is a crucial variable in whether or not choosing one life actually causes another to die. You present a false statement about the nature of death and try to use it to support your idea that choosing to save one life is actually letting another die. You haven’t proven this, and the 1.8 death rate does not prove this either.

        “I will continue to point out your flaws with examples and I will continue to state that 1,8 born people are dying because those are important tools that make it easy for people to understand they are murdering life.”

        Then you are knowingly stating false information and trying to use it to support your idea that murder is taking place.

        “The law does not depend on whether or not any life is saved.”

        nobody said it did.

        Permalink
        • “You still do not understand the error of your reasoning. I will explain.”

          I really appreciate your focused comments. They will really help people understand what you believe and how it is false.

          {“No, the premise is that there are more people dying than can be saved.”
          You are getting confused by your own wording. I’ve already explained that since you use the word “saved” to mean “saving forever,” then the comparitive wording of this is useless.}

          Your major flaw here is to use the wrong meaning for the words in the law and theory.

          The law states: “There are more people dying than can be saved.” The meaning of the word “saved” in the law is that life cannot be saved forever.

          The theory is stated: “The Theory of Choice states: A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or a born person. Every choice to save one life simply allows another to die. Pro lifers simply choose to save fetuses and let children die. There is no “net” gain in life saved due to the fact that these laws limit when life can actually be saved. ”
          The meaning of the word “save” here is that life can be saved for short periods of time. Life can be saved, but not eternally.
          As you can see, the usage of the word in the Law relates to the inability of being able to save life eternally and the usage of the word save in the theory relates to the ability to save life on something other than an eternal basis.
          {If the world population was one, then there would be more people dying than can be saved. Under this idea, nobody can be saved. So it’s stupid to compare the number of people dying vs. the number who can be saved when the number who can be saved is 0. All your law states is that people can’t live forever. That’s it.}
          If that were “it” then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The fact is that your statement that people cannot live forever is different from that statement that more people are dying than can be saved. In your statement, there is no implication that people can in fact be saved for a period of time. In my statement, there is an implication that people can be saved for a period of time.

          {“You try to use this to argue that all people are dying, and therfore need to be saved.”
          I am not arguing, I am stating a fact.”
          This is not a fact.}
          The common sense answer is that all people die. And you state above that all people die. So if you have an exception, then you need to prove your exception.
          “People don’t need to be saved. I’ve already proven this”
          You just stated above that all people die. So you have not proved that all people don’t need to be saved.
          “There is nothing that requires the need for human life to exist.”

          The law applies in those cases where people claim to be saving life. It does not require that life be saved. For example pro lifers claim to save life, but they don’t, they let a life die in an effort to save a fetus.
          “Suggesting a need to be saved brings in moral implications that science cannot prove. The proper wording would be “there are 7 billion people who can be potentially saved for a limited time.”

          I am using the proper context and you are attempting to change the context. That is a contextual fallacy and is of no value in the conversation.

          “Your choice essentially is asserting that at any given second in time, the ability of humanity to save life in the short term is either equal to or less than the amount of born life that can be saved in the short term.”

          No, that is a straw man fallacy and is of no value and does not require a response.

          {“No my theory is that a person must choose whom to save.”
          Here’s the problem. You don’t ever prove that all people cannot be saved for a limited time. You claim there is a choice that must be made. But you haven’t proven that the choice results in a deth because you disregard the variables that would make this true. }
          That is another straw man argument and requires no response.

          “I will use my previous example to illustrate the issue:
          Woman A’s fetus is about to die and Person B is hanging from a cliff, both lives are in danger of death. Person C comes in and decides to save life. He runs over to person A and saves the fetus. He then runs to person B and pulls him up. He saves both people. There is no need to make a choice unless both people are going to die within a time frame that would not allow Person C to save both. ”
          —- I am going to pause here and ask you to put on your thinking cap. I am not certain if you are making an intentional straw man argument or are simply unable to put things in the context in which they are presented.—–

          This is a straw man argument. In the real world there are 7 billion people that need to be saved. If there were only 3 people on Earth, you would have a valid argument. But if there are 4 people, or a billion you do not have an argument. I the real world, there are 1.8 people dying each second. So in the real world there are billions of people dying and if you see a fetus dying and a baby dying then you need to look around, because there are 7 billion people dying, not two. And that is why the law is so important.

          “You claim that choosing to save life A causes the death of life B, because a person is choosing not save life B, therefore causing death.”
          No, I claim that there is a zygote, embryo or fetus dying but that there are also billions of born humans dying. I state a scientific fact. There are more people dying than can be saved. And if a person claims to save human life and chooses to save fetuses, then they are choosing to let a born human life die in an effort to save what may or may not be a human life that can or cannot be saved. Pro lifers let real humans die in an attempt to save what may not be human.
          {The only way this could be true is if time prevents both people from being saved.”
          Time and your own mortality (you are dying) prevent you from saving all born life.
          “Time, then, is a crucial resource on which the consequences of your theory is dependent.”
          No, time is of no importance. All that matters is your choice.
          “If you want to claim that saving one life causes the death of another, you have to prove that the deaths that occur are actually a result of the lack of time to save everyone.”
          No, the law only applies to the choice. Pro lifers make the intentional choice to let babies die. They could make the choice to save babies, right?
          “The fact that everyone dies is irrelavent. The number of people who are dying doesn’t matter. What does matter is whether or not there is enough time to save them. You need to prove this in order to prove that saving one is letting another die. You cannot deny this. ”
          Time does not matter, all that matters is the choice.

          “I know you think that 1.8 people die every second, but that ultimately is irrelevant. Besides the fact that I have already proven this to be untrue, the other issue you have to deal with is the fact that there is not only one person who is trying to save 2 lives. If there are two lives in danger, and two people available to save those lives, then the choice becomes moot.”
          That is a straw man argument. There are not two people dying or 2 million dying, everyone is dying. All will die. And one may choose to “save” them or to let them die. Pro lifers “choose” to let innocent babies die.
          ” One person saves one life, and the other person saves teh second life. No life is lost.”
          That is another straw man argument. If both are born life, then both being saved is a choice to save born life. If one is a fetus, then the choice is to let a born person die and to attempt to save an unborn life that may not be alive. Your failure here is to understand that a choice makes a difference, especially when you waste time trying to save a zygote, embryo or fetus that cannot be saved.
          “So again, the consequence of your choice is dependent on how many people are available to save life.”
          —–Put on your thinking hat again, this is another straw man argument.—–
          My argument is that all people die and more people are dying than can be saved. You have a theory that says that everyone can be saved, we just need to apply enough manpower and resources and do it. I am fine with you making such a theory, but it is doomed to failure. The “Law of Diminishing Returns” will be the death of your theory. If you attempt to save life that cannot be saved, then you will find that if you took every resource on Earth and applied it to the saving of an elderly person that has reached the end of their life, you could expend all your resources to save that one individual and still fail. The only way to allocate resources that could save life, is through triage, which I support.

          “So your statement that “choosing to save one life causes teh death of a born person” is entirely dependent the ability of humanity to save life for a limited time.”
          No, the choice to save a fetus will lead to the death of an innocent baby. Your idea will lead to the death of all life.
          “You would have to prove that humanity’s ability to save life for a limited time is less than the total number of instances in which life can be saved for a limited of time. Only then, could you claim that the choice results in death.”
          No, that has no impact, all that matters is the choice.

          {“f there is life to save in any given second, you must choose which life to save if you are pro life. That is all my law and theory deal with. The capacity to save life is irrelevant. All that matters is the choice.”
          Problem is, as I have shown, you haven’t proven that saving one life guarantees the death of another. The choice only matters if it actually causes death.”}
          The choice not to save a dying person is a choice to let that person die. Do I really need to explain why?

          “How can you claim that people cannot save both unborn and born life when you do not know the extent to which people can save life in the short term?”
          The choice not to save life is the same and the choice to let it die.
          {“I only deal with the choice to save life. If they choose to save a fetus, they cannot at the same instant save a baby. They may choose one or the other. The one they don’t choose does not receive the benefit of their help.”
          But this does not mean that the other does not receive the help needed.}
          Yes it does mean that you have chosen not to save a born life. Your choice not to save born life is a choice to let it die.
          { Another person can save the life of the baby.}
          That is another straw man. The first person chooses to let a baby die if they choose to save a fetus, while the second person chooses to save real life.
          { The problem with your idea is the claim you make that choosing one allows the other to die. You haven’t proven this.}
          It is proved. If there is a person dying (there are 7 billion dying) and you choose to let them die, they will die.
          “Of course people have a choice about who to save, but the choice doesn’t matter unless you can prove that choosing one actually causes the death of another. And this is what you have failed to do. ”
          If a person is dying, and dying each second, and you spend one second not saving life, then 1.8 people will die.

          {“It doesn’t matter. The law and theory deal with choice.”
          Actually, only the theory deals with choice.}
          The theory is based on the law, so they both deal with choice, directly or indirectly.
          ” In your law, there is no possible choice. You cannot save anyone forever.”
          That lays the foundation for the theory.
          “Therefore, there is no choice to save. You use the context of “save forever” in your law. This is impossible, so there is no possible choice to save. It is not an option. Only your theory deals with a choice. ”
          There is a choice to save a fetus or to save a baby. Pro lifers choose not to save babies, so babies die.

          {” If you choose to save the fetus, the baby dies and if you choose to save the baby, the fetus dies.”
          This is what you have failed to prove. This statement is the part of your theory that is dependend upon many variables. All of which you have no supporting evidence for.}
          The evidence is that people are dying and pro lifers make the choice not to save them.

          {“You claim that life can be saved for a short time. You also argue, however, that it is impossible to save born life for a short time while also saving babies.”
          It doesn’t matter if live can or cannot be saved short term or long term.
          All that matters is your choice.”
          It should be obvious why this is a foolish statement. If life cannot be saved in either the short or long term, then you can’t make the choice to save it. }
          You are taking that out of context, it is a contextual fallacy and requires no answer.
          ” You can’t make a choice that isn’t possible to do. I can’t choose to save life is saving life is impossible. So yes, it does matter. ”

          You have a choice, people are dying, and you choose to let them die.

          {“What I have just demonstrated is that 1.8 born people are not necessarily dying every second. You don’t know how many people die in any given second, you can’t make this claim. Unless, of course, you go through the death records of the world population, record and record all of the deaths on a timeline, and then check every second of the year to see how many people actually died in each.”
          “That is irrelevant.”
          It is relavent, because time is a crucial variable in whether or not choosing one life actually causes another to die.}
          Time has no impact. If there is time to save life, then life will be saved. If there is no time, then life will not be saved, but you will have made a choice to save life rather than let it die.
          ” You present a false statement about the nature of death and try to use it to support your idea that choosing to save one life is actually letting another die. You haven’t proven this, and the 1.8 death rate does not prove this either.”
          The rate does not matter, all that matters is the choice.

          {“I will continue to point out your flaws with examples and I will continue to state that 1,8 born people are dying because those are important tools that make it easy for people to understand they are murdering life.”
          Then you are knowingly stating false information and trying to use it to support your idea that murder is taking place.}
          No, I am informing people that they are killing innocent born babies, children and adults.

          { “The law does not depend on whether or not any life is saved.”

          nobody said it did.}
          Thanks for continuing to comment.

          Permalink
          • I very much appreciate these comements. They help point out exactly where the disagreements and the issues are.

            “The fact is that your statement that people cannot live forever is different from that statement that more people are dying than can be saved. In your statement, there is no implication that people can in fact be saved for a period of time. In my statement, there is an implication that people can be saved for a period of time.”

            This statement demonstrates why the wording you use is so poor. You are trying to say two different things with one statement, using two different contexts for a single word. The phrase “there are more people dying than can be saved” implies that people can be saved. It does not imply, however, that life cannot be saved eternally. That is a very different idea, one that cannot be said in the same statement as the other. If you want your idea to be clear, you should state your law like this : “It is impossible save life eternally. It is possible, however, to save life for a short time.” That is all the science that you can state as truth. If you want to say that “there are more people dying than can be saved for a limited time,” you need to prove that with evidence. You need to prove that the ability of people to save life is less than the amount of life that can be saved for a limited time. Which you have not done.

            “The law applies in those cases where people claim to be saving life.”

            This is a huge flaw, one I have already pointed out. A scientific law cannot depend upon a person’s personal claims or beliefs. That absolutely absurd. No scientific law in existence have ever only applied to people who hold certiain beliefs or certain claims. Scientific laws are entirely independent of people’s ideas. This is an absurd statement.

            That would be like saying the law of gravity only applies to those who believe in gravity. Everyone who doesn’t just starts floating around. Ridiculous. If it is a scientific law, then it applies to all circumstances, reagardless of people’s claims. If you put a contingency on it that involves personal choice or belief, it becomes a moral issue, not a scientific one.

            I can demonstrate this very easily.

            LEt’s say two people are on a roof, each holding a stone. Both people open their hands and drop the stones to the ground way below. Scientifically, what has happened? Two stones fell to the ground. Gravity took hold. That is the scientific cause-effect. Now let’s add motivation to this. Say one person dropped his stone because he claimes to save people by trying to drop stones on criminals’ heads. The other guy just drops the stone because he doesn’t want to hold it. Does taht chagne the scientific situation? Of course not. Motivation, beliefs, and claims doesn’t change scientific parameters.

            I can claim all day that the earth is flat, or that the grass is yellow. That doesn’t change the reality of science. If your law is truly scientific, then it would also have to be unaffected by any claim I make. A scientific law, if it is really a law, will always apply to everyone. No matter what.

            If you want to argue that the theory and the law are scientific, then they must apply to everyone regardless of their claims. If choosing to not save life is the same as letting life die, then that must be true for all people regardless of their personal morality or claims or beliefs.

            This of course, means taht people cause the deaths of people all the time. If, scientifically, every choice to not save life is the same as letting life die, then that applies to all, not just those who claim to be pro-life. That means that when you read a book, you are, in that moment, allowign someone to die. Every time you watch TV, you are letting someone die. This is the case for everyone. If, of course, it is scientific. You can’t argue that this is a scientific fact, but that it only applies to people who hold a certain morality. That would be suggesting that the natural world somehow changes based on personal beliefs. Ridiculous.

            “Here’s the problem. You don’t ever prove that all people cannot be saved for a limited time. You claim there is a choice that must be made. But you haven’t proven that the choice results in a deth because you disregard the variables that would make this true. }
            That is another straw man argument and requires no response.”

            How is this a straw-man? You made these claims. I have claimed you haven’t proved them. I am guessing you are simply trying not to answer.

            “In the real world there are 7 billion people that need to be saved. If there were only 3 people on Earth, you would have a valid argument. But if there are 4 people, or a billion you do not have an argument.”

            You misunderstand the purpose of the example. The purpose is to demonstrate that time is a significant factor in the ability of a person to be saved. One person is capable of saving more than one life because not all people need saving at the same time. You have already admitted to this. What matters is that people are available to save other when the time it is needed.

            “I the real world, there are 1.8 people dying each second.”

            I have already explained to you that this is not true. You know this is not true. Any argument you try to make based upon this is worthless.

            “So in the real world there are billions of people dying and if you see a fetus dying and a baby dying then you need to look around, because there are 7 billion people dying, not two.”

            In the real world, there are also billions of people available to save life, not just one. My other examples demonstrates this very clearly.

            And of that 7 billion people who are “dying,” only a portion can actually be saved, a fact you continue to ignore. Until you know how many can be saved, you cannot claim that all “need” to be saved. A choice to save life can only be applied to those who can actually be saved. If you can’t save someone, you can’t make the choice to save them.

            “That is another straw man argument. If both are born life, then both being saved is a choice to save born life. If one is a fetus, then the choice is to let a born person die and to attempt to save an unborn life that may not be alive. Your failure here is to understand that a choice makes a difference, especially when you waste time trying to save a zygote, embryo or fetus that cannot be saved.”

            It doesn’t matter if the person is born or unborn. if two lives are in danger, and there are two people available to save them, then both are saved. It doesn’t matter if one is a fetus or not. The choice doesn’t cause death.

            “It is proved. If there is a person dying (there are 7 billion dying) and you choose to let them die, they will die.”

            This statement must apply to ALL people in order to be true. You cannot argue that it only applies to pro lifers. If you claim this is science, then it applies to all. Which means anything you do (it doesn’t matter if it saving a fetus or watching a television show, laying in your hammock), that does attempt to save a life, allows it to die. Intention and claims cannot affect this idea if it is to be considered scientific.

            “The evidence is that people are dying and pro lifers make the choice not to save them.”

            This doesn’t begin to prove anything. There is no science behind this statement. This doens’t prove scientifically that the choice to save a fetus causes the death of a born person. As I have stated, the only way you can argue for this to be true in any way is to also believe that scientifically, all born people cause born life to die when they make decisions that do not save life. Whether they make the claim to save life or not is irrelavent. Scientifically, life still end due to their inaction. They cause death, whether they claim to or not.

            “It should be obvious why this is a foolish statement. If life cannot be saved in either the short or long term, then you can’t make the choice to save it. }
            You are taking that out of context, it is a contextual fallacy and requires no answer.”

            How is this taken out of context?

            “Time has no impact. If there is time to save life, then life will be saved. If there is no time, then life will not be saved, but you will have made a choice to save life rather than let it die.”

            This statement makes very little sense. You say that time has no impact, but then you explain exactly how time is an impact on whether or not life is saved. If there is time to save life, then life will be saved. So the question is, how much time is available to save life? If there more time available to save life as much as it can be, then you can’t cliam that choosing to save an unborn life causes the death of a born life. Because someone who saves an unborn life could have enough tiem to also save a born life. Multiply that by all the people available to save life. Unless you specifically know all the variables I have mentioned, your claim is jsut an unproven, unscientific statement.

            “The rate does not matter, all that matters is the choice.”

            You keep saying the rate doesn’t matter, yet you keep trying to use it to build your argument that people are letting others die. You can’t have it both ways. It either matters, or it doesn’t.

            The choice only matters if the unchosen option causes death. That can only be proved if you can prove that the amount of life that can be saved for a limited time is greater than the ability of people to save life for a limited time. Meaning this: All life has an inetivable end. Every life has an endign point. Whether or not people reach that depends on life events. You would have to prove that all the obstacles that would prevent a person from reaching that maximum end are graeter than the ability of humanity to help people pass those obstacles. This is the undisputable burden of proof that you have, but keep disregarding.

            “The rate does not matter, all that matters is the choice.”

            The choice only matters if it causes death. And you cannot prove that it does. And even it did cause death, it still wouldn’t matter.

            “No, I am informing people that they are killing innocent born babies, children and adults.”

            No, you are not. You are telling them somethign you haven’t proved. It’s not exactly a lie since you ahve no idea if your claim is true. But you certainly cannot state it as a fact.

            thank you for continuing to discuss this with me. I really enjoy your ideas. they are quite unique.

            Permalink
          • “I very much appreciate these comements. They help point out exactly where the disagreements and the issues are.”
            Thanks, and I appreciate your well structured questions.

            {“The fact is that your statement that people cannot live forever is different from that statement that more people are dying than can be saved. In your statement, there is no implication that people can in fact be saved for a period of time. In my statement, there is an implication that people can be saved for a period of time.”
            This statement demonstrates why the wording you use is so poor. You are trying to say two different things with one statement, using two different contexts for a single word.}
            It is not confusing if you take them in the context they are written. Your problem is that you are looking for errors that don’t exist and are therefore being critical when there is no cause to be critical.
            ” The phrase “there are more people dying than can be saved” implies that people can be saved. It does not imply, however, that life cannot be saved eternally.”
            Again you are being critical without cause.
            “That is a very different idea, one that cannot be said in the same statement as the other. If you want your idea to be clear, you should state your law like this : “It is impossible save life eternally. It is possible, however, to save life for a short time.” That is all the science that you can state as truth. If you want to say that “there are more people dying than can be saved for a limited time,” you need to prove that with evidence. You need to prove that the ability of people to save life is less than the amount of life that can be saved for a limited time. ”
            That is a straw man argument based on contextual fallacies that really does not need an answer, but I will give one anyway. There is no way to construct a law that cannot be taken out of context and used the way you are using this law. For example one can say that a person must prove Newton’s laws in the Andromeda galaxy before they are valid on Earth. But that would be wrong. One simply needs to understand the context of the law within our galaxy to make the assumption that his laws are valid.
            “Which you have not done.”
            Which I have done.

            {“The law applies in those cases where people claim to be saving life.”

            This is a huge flaw, one I have already pointed out. A scientific law cannot depend upon a person’s personal claims or beliefs.}
            The Law applies in all cases. You need to understand that saying something applies in a particular case does not imply that it only applies in the particular case. My belief here is that you are using an intentional contextual fallacy to set up a mudding the waters fallacy. We have discussed this issue numerous times, why?— The theory states that one has a choice, the choice applies to everyone. Everyone that makes a choice is responsible for their choice. The fact that one group has a duty to save life and another does not is where your error lies.
            We went through this in great depth a few of posts back. Every person has a choice to save life or not save life, including their own life. No person is obligated to save any life, including their own. If any person chooses not to save a dying person, that person dies. However there was no obligation to save a life. So they are not the cause of death. if a person claims to save life and does not save life, then they are guilty of not saving life though they claim to save life. If a person is a fireman and claims to save life from fire, and does not, then he is guilty of failing to do his duty. If a fireman claims to save human life and instead lets a human die to save a dog, then he has not saved human life and has in fact let life die to save a dog. If a pro lifer claims to save human life and instead saves a fetus, then he has let human life die to save a fetus. My claim is that pro lifers let human life die to save fetuses.
            ” That absolutely absurd. No scientific law in existence have ever only applied to people who hold certiain beliefs or certain claims. Scientific laws are entirely independent of people’s ideas. This is an absurd statement.”
            Yes your contextual fallacy is absurd, why try and use it? Do you think anyone will believe what you say to be true?

            {That would be like saying the law of gravity only applies to those who believe in gravity. Everyone who doesn’t just starts floating around. Ridiculous.}
            I have never said that the law dose not apply to every situation equally.
            ” If it is a scientific law, then it applies to all circumstances, reagardless of people’s claims. If you put a contingency on it that involves personal choice or belief, it becomes a moral issue, not a scientific one. ”
            I have never put any contingency on the law.

            {I can demonstrate this very easily.
            LEt’s say two people are on a roof, each holding a stone. Both people open their hands and drop the stones to the ground way below. Scientifically, what has happened? Two stones fell to the ground. Gravity took hold. That is the scientific cause-effect. Now let’s add motivation to this. Say one person dropped his stone because he claimes to save people by trying to drop stones on criminals’ heads. The other guy just drops the stone because he doesn’t want to hold it. Does taht chagne the scientific situation? Of course not. Motivation, beliefs, and claims doesn’t change scientific parameters.}
            That is a straw man fallacy. It does not require an answer.

            “I can claim all day that the earth is flat, or that the grass is yellow. That doesn’t change the reality of science. If your law is truly scientific, then it would also have to be unaffected by any claim I make. A scientific law, if it is really a law, will always apply to everyone. No matter what.”
            That is a muddying the waters fallacy. You know from our previous discussions that your analogy is false.

            {If you want to argue that the theory and the law are scientific, then they must apply to everyone regardless of their claims. If choosing to not save life is the same as letting life die, then that must be true for all people regardless of their personal morality or claims or beliefs.}
            That is another mudding the waters fallacy and requires no answer.

            {This of course, means taht people cause the deaths of people all the time. If, scientifically, every choice to not save life is the same as letting life die, then that applies to all, not just those who claim to be pro-life. }
            Of course the law applies equally to all as we have discussed numerous times. In fact we have discussed the issue of a persons responsibility for death when they have an obligation to save life verses the lack of responsibility if there is no obligation. Pro lifers and the fireman above have an obligation to save life, others do not unless they have made some other obligation. So the “cause” of death is not a person that chooses to let others die. That person cannot be the cause of death. The person that is a “cause” of death is the person that is obligated to save life.
            ” That means that when you read a book, you are, in that moment, allowign someone to die. Every time you watch TV, you are letting someone die. This is the case for everyone. If, of course, it is scientific. You can’t argue that this is a scientific fact, but that it only applies to people who hold a certain morality. That would be suggesting that the natural world somehow changes based on personal beliefs. Ridiculous. ”
            The issue of whom “caused” death is dependent on who has an obligation to save life. Not upon the fact that everyone lets life die. The issue of whether someone lets someone die is an issue that is separate from the responsibility for death.

            {{“Here’s the problem. You don’t ever prove that all people cannot be saved for a limited time. You claim there is a choice that must be made. But you haven’t proven that the choice results in a deth because you disregard the variables that would make this true. }
            That is another straw man argument and requires no response.”
            How is this a straw-man? You made these claims. I have claimed you haven’t proved them. I am guessing you are simply trying not to answer. }}
            It is a straw man argument because I do not have a responsibility to prove that all people cannot be saved for a limited time.
            That is not applicable to the theory or law.

            {{“In the real world there are 7 billion people that need to be saved. If there were only 3 people on Earth, you would have a valid argument. But if there are 4 people, or a billion you do not have an argument.”
            You misunderstand the purpose of the example. The purpose is to demonstrate that time is a significant factor in the ability of a person to be saved.}}
            Whether or not a person can be saved is immaterial to the law and theory. All that matters is the choice.
            {{ One person is capable of saving more than one life because not all people need saving at the same time. You have already admitted to this.}}
            I have not admitted to your out of context claim. I admit that there is no reason to save any life whatsoever. All that is required is the choice to save a life or to let it die. You choose to let babies die.
            {What matters is that people are available to save other when the time it is needed. }
            Whether or not people are saved is immaterial. If a person does not choose to save a baby, then the baby dies.

            {“I the real world, there are 1.8 people dying each second.”
            I have already explained to you that this is not true.}
            I have already proved that the number of people dying or save is immaterial to the law and the theory.
            The number is part of an example that shows you how many people may die.
            “You know this is not true. Any argument you try to make based upon this is worthless. ”
            The argument gives and approximation of the number of babies, children and adults you could save if you choose their lives over the life of a fetus.

            {“So in the real world there are billions of people dying and if you see a fetus dying and a baby dying then you need to look around, because there are 7 billion people dying, not two.”
            In the real world, there are also billions of people available to save life, not just one. My other examples demonstrates this very clearly.}
            Your other example failed. You should read my answers. If you have 7 billion people saving 7 billion dying people, eventually they all die. No one is left to save anyone. Everyone dies.

            {And of that 7 billion people who are “dying,” only a portion can actually be saved, a fact you continue to ignore.}
            Actually none can be saved eternally and if you attempt to save one person, then all the resources on earth and all the time in your life can be expended and they will still die. Your idea that you can save a life only leads you to the point that you cannot save yourself with all the resources and time on earth. If you had read my answers before posting, you would understand why your theory makes no sense. If you attempt to save any life whatsoever, then it is a full time job for as long as you live. Why, because every moment they live, they are dying. And eventually you will butt up against the “Law of Diminishing Returns” where each unit of input will produce less and less value in saving life. Eventually you could align all the resources of earth up to save a life in its final moments and the life will die anyway. Your theory fails long before that because as you allocate more and more resources to save the individual, more and more other people will die.
            {{Until you know how many can be saved, you cannot claim that all “need” to be saved. A choice to save life can only be applied to those who can actually be saved. If you can’t save someone, you can’t make the choice to save them.}}
            As shown above such an undertaking will lead to killing people, not saving life. One must choose to save life and then they can save life.

            {{“That is another straw man argument. If both are born life, then both being saved is a choice to save born life. If one is a fetus, then the choice is to let a born person die and to attempt to save an unborn life that may not be alive. Your failure here is to understand that a choice makes a difference, especially when you waste time trying to save a zygote, embryo or fetus that cannot be saved.”
            It doesn’t matter if the person is born or unborn. if two lives are in danger, and there are two people available to save them, then both are saved. It doesn’t matter if one is a fetus or not. The choice doesn’t cause death.”
            But if there are 7 billion people that are dying and 7 billion people attempt to save them, then all will die even if they use all their time saving life. If they spend one second saving a fetus then in that second 1.8 born people will die sooner than they need to die. And if the life is a zygote, it will most likely die as well.

            {{“It is proved. If there is a person dying (there are 7 billion dying) and you choose to let them die, they will die.”
            This statement must apply to ALL people in order to be true. You cannot argue that it only applies to pro lifers.}}
            It does apply to all people.
            But not all people are obligated to save life and therefore are not the cause of death. Pro lifers along with some others are guilty of letting innocent babies die. Why, not because of the law, but because they choose to let them die.
            {If you claim this is science, then it applies to all.}
            Every time we have discussed this I have made it clear it applies to everyone.
            {{ Which means anything you do (it doesn’t matter if it saving a fetus or watching a television show, laying in your hammock), that does attempt to save a life, allows it to die. Intention and claims cannot affect this idea if it is to be considered scientific. }
            No one claimed intention caused the death. The choice leads to the death, not the intention. The cause of the death is separate from the fact that a person choose to let someone die. The cause of the death of a baby, child or adult is the intention to let a baby die to save a fetus.

            {{“The evidence is that people are dying and pro lifers make the choice not to save them.”
            This doesn’t begin to prove anything.}}
            It is a true statement. And when taken in conjunction with the fact that pro lifers have a duty to save life, it is vital. It proves that pro lifers do not save life, they let babies die in an attempt to save fetuses.
            {There is no science behind this statement. This doens’t prove scientifically that the choice to save a fetus causes the death of a born person.}
            It proves that every person on earth has a choice. In a separate vein it shows that pro lifers choose to let babies die to save fetuses.
            { As I have stated, the only way you can argue for this to be true in any way is to also believe that scientifically, all born people cause born life to die when they make decisions that do not save life.}
            The issue is whether or not a person that has no duty to save life is the cause of a death. A person without a duty cannot be guilty of causing a death that they are not required to save. A person with a duty to save life, does have a duty, therefore they are the cause of death.
            “Whether they make the claim to save life or not is irrelavent.”
            No, if the claim to save life then they have a duty to save life.
            “Scientifically, life still end due to their inaction. They cause death, whether they claim to or not. ”
            No, one cannot be the cause of death of something they have no duty to save. Normal people are so busy saving themselves, they cannot save others. To accuse them of being guilty of murder for simply saving their own life would be foolish.

            {{“It should be obvious why this is a foolish statement. If life cannot be saved in either the short or long term, then you can’t make the choice to save it. }
            You are taking that out of context, it is a contextual fallacy and requires no answer.”How is this taken out of context?}}
            You can always make the choice to save life, whether or not it is possible. In such a case you have made the right choice, but you will have been unsuccessful in its execution.

            {{{“Time has no impact. If there is time to save life, then life will be saved. If there is no time, then life will not be saved, but you will have made a choice to save life rather than let it die.”
            This statement makes very little sense. You say that time has no impact, but then you explain exactly how time is an impact on whether or not life is saved.”
            That is a straw man argument. I do not claim that life must be saved in the law or theory. So your false analogy and straw man are useless. I simply claim that if you choose to save a fetus then you have chosen not to save a baby and it can die.
            “If there is time to save life, then life will be saved.”

            Not if you choose to let it die.
            “So the question is, how much time is available to save life?”
            Saving life is immaterial. All that matters is if you choose to save life. If you choose to save life with the same conditions and resources you have to save a fetus, then a person has done all that is possible.
            ” If there more time available to save life as much as it can be, then you can’t cliam that choosing to save an unborn life causes the death of a born life. Because someone who saves an unborn life could have enough tiem to also save a born life. Multiply that by all the people available to save life. Unless you specifically know all the variables I have mentioned, your claim is jsut an unproven, unscientific statement. ”

            That is a straw man argument based upon the fallacy that you can save both a fetus and baby without causing the death of a born baby, child or adult. Until you can prove you can save both without the operation of the “Law of Diminishing Returns” torpedoing your effort, then you have failed.

            {{“The rate does not matter, all that matters is the choice.”
            You keep saying the rate doesn’t matter, yet you keep trying to use it to build your argument that people are letting others die. You can’t have it both ways. It either matters, or it doesn’t.}}
            Neither the Law or Theory care about the rate. The rate is only applicable to use as an example of how many lives you murder by being pro life.

            “The choice only matters if the unchosen option causes death.”

            Any choice to save a baby or unborn potential person causes death of one or the other.
            ” That can only be proved if you can prove that the amount of life that can be saved for a limited time is greater than the ability of people to save life for a limited time. Meaning this: All life has an inetivable end. Every life has an endign point. Whether or not people reach that depends on life events. You would have to prove that all the obstacles that would prevent a person from reaching that maximum end are graeter than the ability of humanity to help people pass those obstacles. This is the undisputable burden of proof that you have, but keep disregarding.”
            The only proof I need is to prove that there are more people dying than can be saved. If you cannot save all life for eternity, then some life will die. If you choose to save a fetus, a born life will die along with many of the fetuses. If you choose to save a baby, the fetus that may have died anyway will die.

            {“The rate does not matter, all that matters is the choice.”
            The choice only matters if it causes death. And you cannot prove that it does. And even it did cause death, it still wouldn’t matter. }
            The proof is that all people die and if you choose to let them die, they will die.

            {{“No, I am informing people that they are killing innocent born babies, children and adults.”
            No, you are not.}
            The scientific proof is that more people are dying than can be saved. Therefore one must choose which life to save and which to let die. Pro lifers choose to let babies die, I choose to save babies.
            {You are telling them somethign you haven’t proved.}
            I have proved they have a choice, they can save a fetus or a baby. Pro lifers choose to save the fetus and let the baby die.
            {{It’s not exactly a lie since you ahve no idea if your claim is true. But you certainly cannot state it as a fact.}}
            It is a proved scientific fact that each person has a choice, (you have admitted to that choice), they may choose to save a baby or a fetus (you have agreed to that fact). If they save the fetus, the baby dies and if they save the baby, the fetus dies. Pro lifers choose to let the baby die.

            “thank you for continuing to discuss this with me. I really enjoy your ideas. they are quite unique.”
            Thank you for your timely response. I know this will resolve your concerns if you do in fact read and understand what is said. Opinion does not matter here, only law. So if you have a concern about the law or theory, please continue with your investigation.

            Permalink
          • You need to remove your fallacies and false analogies before I can allow you to continue to post. Either that, or admit to them individually.
            Once you remove your fallacies I will approve your other posts.
            You don’t need to go all the way back to your first fallacy and false analogy, just a general admission will do for the early ones.
            Just say something like “I acknowledge that I used fallacies and false analogies for the early posts. And for the later post admit that your “stones” analogy was false.

            Permalink
        • I received your latest post and am sad to say you have continued to post straw man and other fallacies. I have warned you repeatedly not to use such arguments. You have also based your currently unapproved post on fallacies and false analogies used in previous posts.
          Those will not be allowed. .
          Please clean up your post and meet my requirements. No fallacies, no false analogies and a correct reading of the law. If you come back with a false reading that says the law cannot be understood, I will not post your comment.

          Permalink
          • I received your next offering and it is filled with fallacies as well. Until you learn what a Straw Man Fallacy is, do not try to repost.

            Your straw man fallacy was your request that I prove that it is a scientific fact that a person must save life if they claim to save life. It is a Straw Man Fallacy because I have never made that claim.

            You also need to learn what a “Mudding the Waters” fallacy is. Your continued pursuit of this issue without stopping the use of fallacies is an example of attempting to muddy the water. So no more posts with any fallacies or false analogies will be excepted. If you cannot prove what you say, it will be deleted.

            Permalink
        • I will allow you a few hours to begin correcting your fallacies or will I correct them for you. Your posts will be deleted and reposted piece by piece and corrected sentence by sentence. I would rather have you correct your own errors, but if you don’t, I will.

          Permalink
          • Thanks for not posting any more fallacies, I will leave your previous fallacies so that others can use them as an example of fallacious arguments.

            Permalink
  10. cheap jordan shoes

    14 is within reach because so many American companies offer highquality goods and services and are

    Permalink
  11. cheap jordan 9 barons

    But I must give honorable mention to a few gemsMasterpiece Theater, American Masters, The American

    Permalink
  12. jordan 5 for sale

    for the purpose of determining the risk of malignancy from these “biologicals” and finds it to be

    Permalink
  13. There is another point I made that was ignored. Whether this was intentional or not I am not sure, so I will bring it up again.

    You claim that triage should be used to save the most life possible. That the ultimate goal is to ensure that the most life that can exist is existing.

    If we were to follow this idea in the way that you establish, then there would be many cases in which saving an unborn would have a greater chance of saving life than that of a born person. As we discussed, an implanted zygot has about a 60% chance of becoming a human (a percentage that I believe is inaccurate, but we can still use it for the sake of the argument). So this means, then, that any born person whose survival rate is below 60% should be ignored in favor of the unborn. Scientifically and mathematically, there is a greater chance that human life will be continued if the fetus reaches birth than if the dying person is attempted to be saved. So really, according to your theory, anyone who has a life expectancy of below 60% should be ignored in favor of fetuses. You can try to argue that the born person is already born, and therefore is already human life, but that is an irrelavent point. What matters is whether the most life has been saved. And mathematically, there is greater potential with the unborn, even if you do not consider the unborn to be a human yet. The potential for continued life is greater with the unborn than with the dying man.

    Permalink
    • “There is another point I made that was ignored. Whether this was intentional or not I am not sure, so I will bring it up again.”

      It is not my intent to ignore anything you post that is honest, on point or that has not be answered elsewhere. If you will read all my posts from the beginning to the end, you will find that most of your questions have been answered many times. So far I have seen on original questions that are of consequence. If you had just read my previous posts, all your time here could have been avoided.

      That is not to say you wasted my time, you have not. It is important that I repeat what I have posted in the past. It has just been a waste of your own time.

      “You claim that triage should be used to save the most life possible.”

      That is a suggestion, not a part of the law or theory.

      “That the ultimate goal is to ensure that the most life that can exist is existing.”

      Yes

      “If we were to follow this idea in the way that you establish, then there would be many cases in which saving an unborn would have a greater chance of saving life than that of a born person.”

      There will always be isolated situations in which “saving the most life possible” will encompass saving a fetus.

      ” As we discussed, an implanted zygot has about a 60% chance of becoming a human (a percentage that I believe is inaccurate, but we can still use it for the sake of the argument).”

      I have corrected you on this error of your several times. The fact is that 70 percent of conceptions die in the first trimester and of those that live, 30 percent more die before birth. You keep avoiding the truth here. It is time to submit. http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/333.full.pdf+html

      http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/f/70percent.htm

      ” So this means, then, that any born person whose survival rate is below 60% should be ignored in favor of the unborn.”

      Your error is that the survival rate for conceptions is less than 30 percent. Actually some estimates are that only 16 percent of conceptions live to birth. But that is not where your greatest error lies. The fact is that from birth forward, the expectation of life for a fetus is less than the expectation of life for people that are past 1 year of age up to about 50 or 60 years old. So the instances of choosing a fetus over a born person will certainly occur, but infrequently.

      ” Scientifically and mathematically, there is a greater chance that human life will be continued if the fetus reaches birth than if the dying person is attempted to be saved.”
      Actually, the chances of living in the first year too the second year is very low compared to a person in youth up until middle age. So it is a nice theory, but wrong.
      ” So really, according to your theory, anyone who has a life expectancy of below 60% should be ignored in favor of fetuses. You can try to argue that the born person is already born, and therefore is already human life, but that is an irrelavent point.”
      No, because so many babies die in the first year, a fetus should not be forced to be born. It would be better to invest in saving babies in their first year of life than to save fetuses. Saving babies is always a better choice.
      ” What matters is whether the most life has been saved. And mathematically, there is greater potential with the unborn, even if you do not consider the unborn to be a human yet. The potential for continued life is greater with the unborn than with the dying man.”
      No, up until middle age, the man is a better risk, if for no other reason, a fetus forced to be born has a high chance of death in the first year.

      Permalink
  14. Mr. Crawford,
    Sorry for the delay in my response. I have become rather busy with graduate school and my job, so time has not been a luxury for me lately. I promise that I will respond to your last comments shortly. Hope you have been well.

    Permalink
  15. Logibear, you have posted a long series of posts claiming I have said things I have not said, and have set up false scenarios that require the reader to know our entire history of debate. No longer will your out of context posts be allowed. You may post your points by placing the entire context of our conversations, so the reader will know what I said vs what you say I said, or your posts will be deleted. So far you have “gotten away with” posting “out of context” and implying I said one thing when I said another. That will no longer occur. If you have something to say, then say it, but not with out of context posts and mudding the water fallacies. .

    Permalink

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>