Studies show that abortion rates drop when contraception is free and accessible. Should the government provide free and accessible birth control as one approach to reducing the number of abortions?
Here is one link to that data:
http://medschool.wustl.edu/news/patient … ive_Choice
No. There is absolutely no reason outside of blackmail to require anyone to pay for the entertainment of someone else, and that's what you're asking for with "free" birth control (which is not "free" at all).
Personally I find the concept behind black mail (give me free birth control or I'll either have an abortion or saddle society with another kid I won't take care of) quite distasteful. Either pony up the costs of your entertainment or don't participate.
But these people are poor Wilderness and cant afford contraception (said sarcastically) they would rather wait and see and pay $500!!!!!!!!
Socialism loves blackmail................................................
Given your demonstrated personal principles and perspective, this response is not a surprise, but your characterization of the issue as simply a matter of personal responsibility sounds a bit like someone willing to;
"... cut their nose off just to spite their face."
Blackmail? Really? That conjures up the dark image of a teenager standing in the shadows holding a loaded penis; captioned; "Gimme da rubber or the girl gets it!"
I also don't like the idea of "another" government supported social program using taxpayer money to give someone something "free" that common sense would expect them to pay for themselves.
Free condoms? Geez Louise, want me to hold your pants for you too?
But, even with this perspective, I don't have a problem with the various State government condom distribution programs because...
1) there appears to be valid research data that shows CD, (condom distribution), programs are saving much more in future taxpayer-paid medical/welfare/social costs than the cost of the CD program. Your perspective seems to fall into the "penny wise, pound foolish" category.
2) ya ain't gonna stop 'em from screwing around
So yes, I can live with a State program to give away a "free" dollar condom today to avoid paying $10,000, (just seems like a cute big number), for medicaid or WIC or SNAP benefits later.
*ps - note my "State" clarification - I do not believe this is an area the Federal government should be involved in - other than perhaps supporting State efforts
I agree that it is probably penny wise-pound foolish. Most refused blackmail is as the consequences are always worse than the blackmail itself.
But there is a matter of self respect, and of how far do we let it go to boot. There is also the question of other methods - birth control is not limited to the pill or condoms. Sterilization comes to mind, with an almost perfect record behind it. (And truthfully, I would probably support condom giveaways anyway - purchased in quantities of 10 million, it shouldn't be a penny apiece.)
But what is the difference in state/federal being involved here? I'm not following that one?
I see the federal level as a conglomerate of communities - the states.
I see the states as large communities. I believe the members of any community have the right to set their own rules.
I believe states are much more responsive to and reflective of its citizens.
... so, if the majority of state citizens want to do something, it's their choice. If I don't like it - to the point I don't want to tolerate it, I can work to change it - or move. For instance, I enjoy visits to New York and Massachusetts - but I would not live in either state.
Not the same case on the federal level - at least as I see it.
I see, and understand (I think). But why stop there? Why not city/county level? Is not a state a conglomerate of counties, which is in turn a conglomerate of cities?
Mind you, I can think of several reasons I wouldn't want cities OR counties to have much power, but I'm asking for your thoughts.
Yes, my state reasoning applies all the way down to neighborhood associations - which I don't like, and would not live where ruled by one.
My point is that, although it may seem just semantics, a group of people, a community, has every right to make their own rules, (within realistic reason of course), as long as the majority of members agree. One always has a choice not to be a part of a group if their disagreement is strong enough.
I do not see the Federal level in the same light. It isn't citizens represented - it is legislators, and I believe that legislators at the federal level are much less representative of their citizens than at the state level. Yes, they are supposed to represent their constituents, but we have all seen how that works once they get to D.C.
Also, leaving a nation is not the same as leaving a community. As I see it.
For instance; New York and its silly failed soda ban. I think that was a dumb law, but if New Yorkers want it, it is not my place to complain - I am not a New Yorker.
A more serious and illustrative example would be an Amish community. Their community rules are a sharp contrast to "the rest of us," and members that want a different lifestyle can and do leave. So it is none of my business how they decide to manage their affairs.
But what if Amish rules came from the federal level and applied to all of us?
I see. I would disagree with the basis of the idea that the majority is always right. Our constitution is mostly a set of limits applied to government (in this case the federal level) and protections for the minority. Not a blanket statement the majority can do what they wish.
Minorities must always be protected, and your mention of NYC pop law is a good example. The majority has no ethical right to impose such a ban and should not do so. Saying a minority can move if they don't like it is insufficient; they have as much "right" to live peacefully as the majority does, just not the political pull to MAKE it peaceful.
I am not aware of any laws forcing anyone in Amish country to follow Amish tenents. They might like to have such laws but the law of the land prohibits such control over others.
Well, I guess we are in that fog of semantics and inferred intentions.
I did not intend to imply majority rule is always right, or that only the wishes of the majority are valid.
Should I have used consensus instead? Should I have devoted a few paragraphs defining acceptable parameters for the descriptor "reasonable?" Or declaring that majorities don't automatically trump minorities in any case?
I suppose I should have included the disclaimer that my thoughts were framed within the concept of legal and ethical considerations. But it is not usually beneficial to state the obvious, and I thought my statements conveyed the framework of those considerations. My mistake, I should have been more clear - or you less picky, one or the other anyway.
I now regret using the NYC example, because it forces me to defend something I think is wrong, but...
And again, within constitutional and legal restrictions, the "majorities" that elected the numbskulls that promulgated the silly soda laws, (which of course were shot down by the court), have every right to make such laws for their "community."
As for saying the minority can move...
"Saying a minority can move if they don't like it is insufficient; they have as much "right" to live peacefully as the majority does, just not the political pull to MAKE it peaceful."
You do understand the irony of that statement don't you? You are lamenting the reality of society. What happened to your personal choice and personal responsibility perspective? In real life, if one does not like something there are three choices; work to change it, move away from it, or accept it.
Do you see another choice?
"I am not aware of any laws forcing anyone in Amish country to follow Amish tenents"
There you go again... I would offer to take the blame for being unclear, but I think you knew exactly what I was saying. My Amish example was in reference to sharply differing community rules. Do you not see the life of an Amish community being any different from any other? Do you not think anyone leaves an Amish community? There was no mention of federal laws in the example.
[later edit] oops, I was in a rush and distracted. I did not mean to sound so harsh, sorry.
"have every right to make such laws for their "community." This is where we differ - while the majority has every legal right to make such laws as the soda one (and turns out they actually did not), they do NOT, IMHO, have the ethical right to impose unnecessary controls on others. Unnecessary meaning controls beyond protection for themselves, and I realize our legal system is absolutely stuffed with that very type of law.
Amish - My intent was to differentiate between "rules" and "laws". One incarcerates or fines people, one shuns them. You want to live the life of a silent monk in Amish country, drive a car around - I have no problem with that. To put someone in jail because their soda is too large is insane, and an unethical control by the majority.
Since the soda example was a bad one - dumb and tossed out by the courts, let's bury that one.
Obviously I too was talking about rules, rather than legal laws, in the Amish example. And ethical wasn't part of the conversation. You know, different strokes kinda stuff in those definitions of ethics..
So who do you think should make the rules, and laws, for a community? Who in the community should decide the "Free" condoms distribution question?
Given a "constitution" of some sort that protects the minority from the vagaries of a controlling majority, the majority vote generally rules. Generally - the rights of the minority to live their life with as little interference as possible must always be considered. Unenforceable rules; as people wish, until illegal discrimination occurs (see the preceding statement)
As the requirement is for someone else to provide entertainment for those not wishing to purchase it themselves, no one should be deciding the condom distribution. As an alternative solution; allow contributions to be made to provide condoms, by anyone wishing to make such contributions. A central distribution point should be an acceptable compromise in tax dollar spending - force participation in the minor cost of a big box under the eye of a clerk somewhere and accept that some of the clerks time will be spent in re-filling the box, purchasing condoms, remonstrating that only 5, or 10, or 100 can be taken at a time.
What the hell was all that?
The discussion was about communities - as small as a neighborhood assoc. up to a state level - so now a constitution is involved?
"Generally the majority rules?" Is there an echo in the room?
Free will contributions in lieu of an organized CD program? So now you are against CD programs again?
It appears that to maintain the purity of your principles you are willing to pay a lot of public money later, (knowing it is a sure thing the costs will occur), instead of spending pennies of public money now. (relatively speaking of course)
I have always believed in the wisdom of common sense, and I don't see much of it in that position. So I will stick to my support of state run CD programs, and you can stick with your... no wait, that won't work. If your principle prevails then I am stuck with the cost of your righteousness.
Unless of course your position is the minority position.
Hmmm, is it unethical for the majority to overrule you and decide to spend a little now instead of a lot later. Understanding of course that regardless of your principles - there will be a cost. The sun is going to rise, and young folk are going to have sex - the cost is just a matter of the wisdom of the choice.
Did you catch the quote marks around "constitution"? Indicating not a constitution such as the US has but some kind of protection for the minority?
I've always been against forcing one group to pay for another, and doubly so when it is for luxury or entertainment. But I'm sure that I, being a minority, will be overruled and once more be forced to pay for something someone else wants but doesn't want to pay for. It's called greed and, this time, stupidity.
"Hmmm, is it unethical for the majority to overrule you and decide to spend a little now instead of a lot later."
Wrong question. What you should be asking is it unethical for the majority to force me to pay for entertainment by a group of blackmailing idiots? And the answer is yes.
But before you declare there WILL be future costs, have you exhausted all options? Have you considered forced sterilization after the first abortion? Have you considered saddling parents with debt, to be paid back before any welfare can be had? Have you considered making unwanted babies easily available for adoption? Have you tried ANYTHING but charging others for the play time of an irresponsible few?
Wilderness, as we are discussing the realities surrounding a government sponsored CD program, the underlying circumstances are realities - not what-ifs or hypothetical.
Perhaps we are missing the connection there.
1) I see it as a fact that regardless of almost any effort to stop it - some young immature folks are going to have sex.
2) Some of them will have unprotected sex - due to either ignorance or irresponsibility, that will result in unwanted pregnancies.
3) This unprotected sex will have future public monetary costs in some cases; medical/welfare/social.
Do you disagree with those basic assumptions?
If you do not disagree, then my "ethics" question was the correct one.
Your suggested "other" choices;
1) sterilization after first abortion - would this be a Zero Tolerance choice, or would it consider mitigating circumstances? Who makes that decision? Who makes the rules that decision maker follows. I am surprised you offer this as a serious consideration. Do you think it would be any more of a deterrent than the death penalty is?
2) saddling the parents with the debt - sure, I can agree with this logical choice, but what if there are no parents? Or the parents are really unable to pay any of the costs? What then?
3) the unwanted babies adoption suggestion is already an established option - for pregnancies that result in a birth - this is an abortion discussion, remember?
Have I tried anything other than free condoms? Yes, in the realm of my world, my wife and I educated our kids in this regard. But in the realm of a societal group, as in a community, there have been a lot of other efforts made. I don't need to list them, you are already familiar with them, they are not secret. But they have not produced the desired results, hence the desperate effort of free condom distribution programs.
You are stuck on the wrongness and unfairness of the situation as it impacts responsible citizens. I am not. While I agree with your perspective that it isn't right, I understand the reality that "it is what it is" and my choice is to mitigate the impact.
As mentioned, the sun is going to rise, and young folks are going to have sex. Until you can control both of those - you are going to have the costs we have been discussing. Do you still think it is smart to oppose CD programs with proven results, from the righteous position of principles, and costs be damned?
Wilderness, sadly, many people refuse to take responsibility regarding the sexual area. This not only applies to young unmarried and/or uncommitted people but to MARRIED persons also. There are married people who have sex irresponsibly, either having MORE children than they can take off emotionally, financially, and psychologically and WE ARE ALL paying for such irresponsibility in one way or another!
You are right.
There must be other factors overriding the sense of responsibility though. I think many people fool themselves into why they get pregnant "accidentally". I think procreation is an instinct that tends to win out even over out big brains and maturity as a sentient species.
Young people hook up. Society can either pay for the prevention, or pay for the results. Paying for the prevention is cheaper.
Paying for the education would be cheaper in the long run.
This is why you shouldn't have unprotected sex
This is why you should educate your children about having unprotected sex
This is why your children should educate their children about having unprotected sex.
While I agree that contraception should be made accessible, young people must learn the responsibilities and the psychological and emotional, even psychic ramifications of sex. Young people must be taught that they must be mature and responsible, knowing all the aspects of sex emotionally, mentally, and psychologically before electing to indulge in sex. They should realize that if they AREN'T ready or prepared, then DON'T, pure and simple! Sex is not the be and end all!
Have I not produced/printed those Tee shirts that say, "STEP AWAY FROM THE EGGS?"
It would be so capitalistic of me! And so greedy to try to make money off of the wise and willing! But somehow I don't think those Tee shirts will be a very successful product. )
"Make abortion illegal?" This is just a horribly misinformed answer to a complex problem that requires actually thought.
http://crankalicious.hubpages.com/hub/T … ion-Debate
Sorry, I'm simply opposed to killing babies.
I am too. Your answer is just so simple. I think every teen should watch an abortion video or two. The way they have to rip apart the baby's body in the womb before they can vacuum it out… I think the head has to be severed first. ( BTW A human embryo will become a human baby. ) Just step away from the testosterone, ladies.
You can be opposed. I have no problem with that. But it's a non-thinking answer to a complex issue that does not address numerous public policy considerations and public health concerns. Making abortion illegal does nothing to stop abortion. Among other issues: how do we criminalize it? Does a mother who gets an illegal abortion because her baby is going to be born with its brain on the outside of its body get the death penalty? Does the person who performs the abortion? And does a US citizen who travels outside the US to get her abortion suffer the same penalty as a woman who cannot afford to travel and has her abortion in a back alley? Want to stop abortions? Distribute free birth control and educate, educate, educate. But you're opposed to that.
Bedrooms are for making babies. Picnics are for making babies, Hay is for making babies. An isolated location in the mountains by a stream is good for making babies. Stay away from those places too.
And it is truly free.
"Free" birth control HAS TO BE PAID BY SOMEBODY!
Everyone should pay for their own romping, wherever it occurs.
...and for whatever consequences occur as well. Here is another hint:
Don't think sex is not dangerous.
It is… in SOOOOO many ways!
OMG, of course somebody is paying for it, but it's a lot cheaper to give somebody a five cent condom than to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars down the road for all the health needs associated with either an abortion or an unwanted baby or an uncared for baby.
Free condoms send a bad message to the ones with their hands out. "Have at it. Have at it. Barn yard animals have at it and we are no different from them. Do not wait until you find the man or girl of your dreams. Do not wait until you have a house/apt. and yard/park and a job and an extra bedroom. "
A better message would be this: "If you cannot afford your own condoms then you can't afford to have sex.
- and furthermore, there are consequences if you do and you, and you alone, are responsible for your actions and behavior… not all of us."
Please. I think we can all agree that we're all referring to the waste of life abortions that occur due to an unwanted pregnancy. Let's not group that nonsense in with medical necessity or emergency. Do I appear THAT stupid to you?
Believe it or not, I'm opposed to the concept of somebody being so stupid that they have unprotected sex, end up pregnant, and have an abortion twenty weeks down the road out of convenience. However, as public policy, it happens. And if we don't provide a safe procedure for all women, we're just forcing those who are poor to head to the back alleys while those with money will go to Canada or overseas. Go ahead and try to answer my questions though. How do we make it illegal? What will the penalties be? I assume the death penalty, RIGHT?
I actually don't really care much anymore. I consider this sick society yours, not mine. If it were up to me, I would change just about everything.
I really do not believe that Condoms paid for by *the people* will reduce abortions.
and of course, abortions should not be illegal either when it is a necessary medical procedure.
I do not think *the people* should pay for someone's abortion though. That is what should be illegal.
Of course, Obama Care will take care of that one just fine.
It's a proven statistical fact that free birth control lowers abortion rates according to the data link provided by the question's author. Once we get to a point where we don't believe in data, then our society has devolved far beyond anything having to do with too much sex.
I'm really, really sad for you that you find that funny. Unfortunately, and I apologize for sounding harsh, but if I'm debating from a foundation of understanding in how science works and how the scientific method works and the other side of the debate is not, then I might as well be debating with a monkey. Here are two examples:
Fact #1: carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat and make Earth warmer than it otherwise would.
Fact #2: Human activity has been increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere.
Despite these facts, people argue that they are not facts.
Fact: no scientific data exists to support the conclusion that vaccines cause autism.
Despite this, people follow former Playboy playmates and decide not to get their children vaccinated against things like polio and measles and there are measles outbreaks in places like California.
When one side relies on data and science to draw their conclusions and the other relies on personal beliefs and magic, then it might as well be a debate between humans and monkeys.
Your idea of the scientific method needs to go a great deal further. While simply breathing will produce CO2, there is much more to consider beyond what man does.
For instance: Is there other animal activity producing more CO2 than in the past? More tectonic/volcanic activity? What activities does man engage in that reduces CO2 and what are the effects? What are geologically historic levels, and does man's contribution take the planet out of those norms? Are plant levels, reducing CO2 levels being reduced? An honest scientist, working within the scientific method will find a hundred more questions to throw into the pot as well.
The scientific method does NOT include insinuations like the one you have produced; that man produces CO2 and is therefore a primary cause of global warming. Such thinking is left to the conspiracy theorists and chicken little's of the world, while science tries to find actual truth by examining the entire picture rather than a tiny portion of it.
I truly respect you and your positions, but while your questions are correct, your conclusion is wrong. Science has done precisely what you are requesting with regard to global warming. Rather than explain myself, I will provide you a link:
I did not make any insinuation. That man produces CO2 by itself does not mean man is the cause of global warming. That is not at all what I am saying. I'm saying that the scientific evidence has concluded that man is the cause of rising CO2 levels that are causing climate change.
Let's see here. "Climate change" equates to global warming in this case - that is what is being discussed, after all. CO2 does not decrease global temperatures; it raises them.
Now, you say that your claim is not that man is the cause of global warming, then in the next sentence say that "man is the cause of rising CO2 levels that are causing climate change." - replace "climate change" with it's equivalent of "global warming" in this context and you have exactly that. "Man is the cause of global warming, via the effects of the CO2 he is producing". Which is what I said; a strong insinuation (now a flat out statement) that man is the cause. Very poor science, and something that is normally left to the chicken littles, always crying that the sky is falling.
Does you link answer any of those few questions I ask? Does it ask any others? Or is it just more claims that it is all due to man without ever investigating the problem?
You will have to read the link, I guess.
There is no doubt that human activity is adding carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Today’s carbon dioxide concentration is already some 40% higher than it was at the time of the American Revolution, and at its current rate of increase will reach double its pre-industrial level by around 2060 to 2070.
You are correct in that humans add CO2 to the atmosphere - we breathe it out if nothing else.
But to go further, and claim that because it is half again the concentration 200 years ago, AND that human activity has been responsible for that increase, well, that just hasn't been shown to be true.
Instead we find folks saying it, but lacking any proof. They refuse to look at other causes, they ignore other known activities and simply repeat the claim that it is man caused as if saying it enough times is proof. It isn't.
And along the way the fear mongers tend to leave out a few facts, such as CO2 levels have increased over historic known highs by far less than 40%. 90,000 years ago it was 3/4 of what it is now, for instance.
But I'm not particularly interested in arguing the cause of global warming - all I've said is that it is poor science to make unfounded conclusions, such as man is the primary, or sole, cause of the global warming we're seeing.
OK - I read your link. Nowhere is there any data on the amount of heat rise due to man made CO2. Just a statement that we produce CO2 and are therefore responsible for all global warming - pretty much what I said you were claiming. And that is a complete scientific fallacy, which I've also tried to explain to you.
I don't see how you can draw that conclusion after reading this:
The clear concern is this: In recent decades, the concentration has skyrocketed to more than 400 ppm, making the current carbon dioxide concentration far higher than it has been for at least 800,000 years. The timing of this rise makes it fairly obvious that human activity is responsible for it, but there’s additional evidence that makes it even more certain that the rise is due to us: The isotopic composition of the carbon in fossil fuels is slightly different from that from other sources, and careful measurements leave no doubt that the added carbon dioxide is coming largely from the burning of fossil fuels.
What conclusion? I'm telling you that no conclusion can be drawn as to the causes of global warming and you tell me it is man because man breathes like any other animal! You simply cannot conclude that man is the primary or sole cause (which you have stated) of global warming because we produce greenhouse gasses. It is insufficient to make such a conclusion.
And no, it is NOT "far higher" than it has been for 800,000 years - only about a third and it was higher than that at times in the past.
Here's another science fact for you; a correlation in time does NOT indicate causality. It is that kind of fallacy that gives the lie to the conclusion being claimed.
If fossil fuels are producing a greater percentage of CO2 than in the past, it means we're doing a better job of controlling forest fires and burning less fresh vegetation. (Now, I don't believe that, but it is an indication of the type of questions that a competent scientist will answer before declaring we're at fault.)
No matter how much I might respect somebody's opinions, I prefer to trust the scientists on this issue. I should also note, I recently saw a factoid that indicates that David Koch has contributed over $67 million dollars to climate change denial groups. This has undoubtedly muddied the waters.
...because what they report is completely unbiased, what-so-ever, for any reason, at-all-times. Good to know. I am such a sinner for my mistrust. One of us is going to hell sooner than later.
People who don't understand science or how it works or what happens to get to a consensus within the scientific community tend not to trust it.
Either that or tend to trust the "scientist" that produces an emotional argument that resonates within the listener. Somehow the word "science" has become a holy word, infallible even as those "doing science" are found to be lying through their teeth.
No scientist and no person who understands science would describe any particular experiment as infallible or science in a general way as infallible. But again, if the scientific method is followed, then it's as close to truth as we can get in most cases. I suppose we can start arguing about whether the earth revolves around the sun. I guarantee you if Fox News started reporting it the other way around, we'd see a huge spike in those who believe it. That emotional argument of which you speak has a perfect example in the work of Andrew Wakefield.
This reminds me of those who don't believe in evolution by describing it as "just a theory".
And you trust every internet piece of info by any one who writes anything…No you do not.
Times have changed.
Implying, I presume, that the link I provided is not trustworthy. The inability of people to discern expertise when they read it is what's leading to America's decline. That some people trust talking heads more than people who are experts in their field is sad.
I love the scientific method. I just don't think much of it when abused. As when data is neglected/ignored or flat falsified when presenting conclusions to peers. As when valid questions are ignored in favor of finding for a pre-determined conclusion. As when results are skewed to provide more money to "researchers".
And all of that has been done, over and over. So no, the scientific method has not been followed, data is not trustworthy and neither are the fake conclusions. They may be true, they may not (personally I think man plays a large part, but probably not the determining factor) but we do not know at this point.
Nicely put. Boy, are you good at clarifying the difficulty. I can pinpoint the difficulty but rarely can I clarify it.
Funny thing - what I'm reading now is that increased temperatures will lead to an ice age. An ice age that could actually be averted because of the amounts of energy being produce by man, that all eventually turns to heat.
So, just maybe, we are doing the right thing by increasing energy usage.
Don't we determine guilt or innocence by the preponderance of the evidence? When 90%+ of the world's scientists agree on something, it seems to me hard to ignore.
Of course, wilderness, you are arguing something different. You are clearly not a climate change denier. You seem to acknowledge there's something there.
I guess I tend to trust scientists and believe in experts when it comes to things for which I am undertrained to determine myself. When a majority of them agree on something, I do tend to go with it.
Science is not a court of law. The scientific method is not a group of lawyers playing games with laws and emotions. And finally, when someone says 90% of all scientists agree with a controversial issue they wish to propagate on the public I take a VERY hard look because it is very seldom true. (Especially when others claim that EVERY "real" scientist agrees).
Of course there is climate change; the earth is warming up. Whether it will continue or go into an ice age is apparently debatable, but it is warming at this time. What is NOT known is whether it is primarily due to man's actions or not and much of that is directly due to lack of confidence in the fake scientists falsifying data. When you cannot trust the data you cannot trust the conclusion. And when that data is producing billions of dollars in profits it becomes ever more suspect IMHO.
That's just a popularity vote for something. Intelligent people make up their own minds. Like when 90 percent of scientists think the world is flat, doesn't make it true necessarily.
Wow, Wilderness, you really didn't want to engage that metaphor. And no, just because 90 percent of some group of people think something is true doesn't make it true, but I bet if you look at the things that 90% of scientists agree upon, most of them are true.
I don't believe in most scientific theories, sorry. I would certainly be an odd Wilderness sock puppet, as he's an agnostic evolutionist/ proscience advocate, and I'm a crazy loon who made up my own religion.
However, I could be super clever......
I was addressing you both, sorry.
Oh please do elaborate on the scientific theories you don't believe.
Which ones? Most of them.
Big Bang, Evolution, the whole lot for the most part.
So among the things we can conclude is that you and I cannot possibly have a debate that means anything to either of us.
Probably. I do enjoy a pointless debate now and again though.
And I like your stick figure drawing, it's cute. There's a start.
What I meant to say was, so, you think all scientific theories (or most) are correct?
I think most established scientific theories, like the big bang and evolution, are based on a mountain of evidence, have been peer reviewed, and are the closest thing we have to the truth that we are able to know. I'm sure over time additional evidence will surface that will alter the theories here and there in terms of things like the age of the earth and the development of man. I believe they are correct insofar as the theories are supported by the evidence.
There are huge discrepancies in both evolution and Big Bang. I think that things evolve, just not by random mutation. I think there is a pattern behind it. The Big Bang is held up by too many assumptions that makes the theory collapse if even one thing is wrong. I think it is more likely that an electric universe theory will pan out to be more accurate.
Do you have a background in either evolutionary biology or astronomy? And you realize that random mutation has been witnessed and is the basis for the theory?
I have a basic knowledge of evolution and astronomy. I know that all scientists do not agree. I can base my own thoughts on facts I find presented, and often disagree on what those facts mean.
I know that random mutations occur. That doesn't mean I think that it is the basis of evolution. Those, to me, are accidents that have little lasting effect on the process. I think it is self-regulating.
by Chris Mills4 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a...
by Nickny798 years ago
Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi on birth-control funding as part of the $825 billion stimulus package: "Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises...
by Matthew Dawson6 years ago
I just read a hub that touched my heart in a massive heart wrenching way the article was talking about abortion and certainly was supportive to Pro-Life. After reading the hub I sat back and thought what my life would...
by Credence23 years ago
See:http://bigstory.ap.org/article/texas-la … strictionsBased on the linked article I offer the following: I knew that the Texas legislature, the GOP in particular, has been determined to introduce its moral...
by R. Fritz2 years ago
Is it right or wrong even though it is legal?
by Peeples4 years ago
It bothers me that so many parents are uninformed about basic contraception. Why are so many comparing the morning after pill to an abortion? Do they not understand what the pill is or do they know and just ignore the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.