DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

There are 17 states that already pay for (at least) some abortions with public money in medicaid funds (including NY). It is pretty easy to look up how much money is coming out of taxpayers as a result.

However, if it's just about the money, then you have no idea what you're talking about as a justification against this. It's way cheaper to help pay for abortions for the poor (which is what medicaid does) than to pay to help raise and care for impoverished children. (There's also an argument that a "reasonable" legal abortion rate lowers generational crime rates, reducing yet another cost of taxpayer monies. You'd presumably see school costs somewhat lowered too, although that's a bit of a wash given the public subsidies and inflation of education cost).

Also, in some cases, particularly in states with limited funding, it IS a serious medical condition being paid for. Women can and do have this procedure out of medical necessity rather than out of choice.

(As a caveat, I'm not saying that poor people should all get abortions or certainly not be forced to. But if money is the subject matter, then you're going to have to confront the problem that it's cheaper this way. Try something else rather than finances to defend not funding it).

Not saying that you are, but I find that this particular argument that you have stated here is a bit on the psychotic side. You might want to think out your rationalization a bit more.

Contrary to popular belief, Human life does actually begin at conception – that is a scientifically proven fact.

Leaving religious dictates out of the argument, it is my not-so-humble opinion that regardless of what insurance pays for it, getting an abortion just because one does not want to have the baby she is carrying is tantamount to murder.

It is also my not-so-humble opinion that abortions should only be allowed in the following cases;

1. To save the mother's life. (that means that the mother is in fact in imminent danger of losing her life if the abortion is not immediately performed – ectopic pregnancy is one such type of case)

2. The mother is the victim of a violent and forcible rape.

3. The mother is the victim of an incestuous impregnation.

It is also my not-so-humble opinion that there are so many contraceptive methods that are now available for those who wish to have recreational sex that unwanted pregnancies are just way too preventable in this modern day and age that this fact alone precludes elective abortions.

I think that in some instances, Medicaid should cover abortions, but in most instances, it should not. I think that it should only cover abortions if having a child is dangerous to the mother's help. I don't think Medicaid should cover people who have abortions by choice, because if they don't really need an abortion, I don't believe they should have one.

In cases of rape or incest yes Medicaid should cover abortions. In any other case, well, you got yourself into it, you get yourself out.

I put it that way with the caveat at the bottom, so no. As usual you failed to read the whole thing I suppose. This is hardly a new problem for you to struggle at reading my posts. I have thought this through quite a bit. If there's a problem with it, perhaps you should try pointing it out instead of simply accusing me of being a psycho.

The problem with it is that if you want to use money to justify something then money actually works out that it's cheaper to pay for it. I was simply pointing out that, as usual, Jared doesn't know what he's talking about and he seems reluctant anymore to actually debate his points anyway.

I'd prefer that people not come in here and see his blather and presume that well gee, it must be cheaper not to pay for them. Because they would be wrong, empirically speaking it's much cheaper to pay for a few voluntary abortions (it's cheaper still to help pay for birth control) than to pay for these undesired children to be effectively raised by the state (ie taxpayers) in most cases.

Now if someone wants to debate whether we have some other objection to paying for abortions, fine. But that's not the point he was raising or that I was specifically refuting.

I am not accusing you of being psycho . . . I just stated that your opinion is a bit on the psychotic side. Try reading what you wrote with an objective mind and maybe you can see what I was trying to say.

You must have an "in" with the moderators on this site as they have not allowed my argument/opinion to be published on this subject, yet they allow every opinion that is in favor of what it is that they want.

Is DebateItOut prejudiced? In my not-so-humble opinion YES!

The point being made is that money doesn't matter here. If somebody wants to make a monetary argument against funding for abortions, that's a losing argument. There are other more compelling arguments against abortions, or against public funding for such, but these are not based on how much they cost, both in literal and in long term forms. These are moral, religious, or otherwise personal ethical considerations, and not arguments against budgetary waste. You are welcome to raise these arguments in my book, even though they are blocked for whatever reason here. I will probably disagree with some of them, but they're at least more useful and possibly even morally rational than objecting to "cost".

I fail to see how this is even the least bit psychotic. Virtually all public policies can be evaluated on a cost-benefit curve like this. Lots of regulatory structures put a price on human life in order to have a less arbitrary value for safety (be it cars or food) for example. In essence you are accusing anybody who works in insurance (of any kind), safety regulation, arbitration, or especially as an actuary, to be marginally psychotic?

If that's what you intended, fine. Thinking in terms of cost-benefit analysis when it comes to fiscal budget costs is hardly "psychotic" however. If there was some other reason that my opinion was "psychotic", perhaps you should voice it. Because clearly I'm oblivious to what constitutes a psychotic response….. Or perhaps you should choose your words more carefully when you disagree with someone over facts.

As far as publishing opinions and posts, they've blocked me from replying to a couple of yours or Jared's a couple times. Sometimes it gets through their filter (eventually) and sometimes not. I haven't figured out the system either. It is possible that you were making personal attacks, or were otherwise "offensive" in your replies. This is not unusual behavior for you and in several cases I've seen posts that should have been flagged for this reason. But in so far as you have an opinion on abortion, or abortion funding, I'm not sure why you should be suppressed from expressing it freely no.

Human life beginning at conception is not in fact a proven scientific fact, hence whether or not abortion is murder is based upon a belief that life begins at conception and not at some other arbitrary point (generally a live birth).

Among the many major flaws with this opinion is that many pregnancies are terminated naturally without coming to term well before a life begins and we make no effort to protect these lives (miscarriages usually or other failures of pregnancy carried to term). This makes the "life begins at fertilization" argument seem a little suspect already. And this is before addressing that there is somehow a distinction between sperm/eggs and a fertilized zygote on its way, possibly, to fetal growth and development and maybe birth in order to make the "life begins at conception" argument at all. (which makes your otherwise reasonable pro-birth-control argument seem a little strange when it is presented alongside this one).

Another problem would be that somehow these lives created by incest or rape are somehow allowed to be invalidated but those created by drunken foolishness or by say a birth control failure are not. I'm not seeing a distinction there other than arbitrary "the mom isn't responsible" denotations created by pro-lifers such as yourself. I can see an argument for incest but not rape based on this line of reasoning. But if rape is allowed, I really don't see how birth control failures or more or less any other reason presumed valid by the prospective mother isn't.

I find it rather insulting to have any and all of my comments delayed due to everything I write being reviewed by the moderators of this site.

wow I posted this like three days ago…. I guess it got held up because of the word "rape" in it?

Knowing that I am not the only one being censored really doesn't make me feel any better about it. As far as personal "attacks" are concerned, I really do not think that expressing my opinion about the way someone else chooses to look at a subject would classify it as an attack – for instance I do not believe that I am attacking you personally by my above comments, and I actually consider your taking it differently than I intended it to be nothing but a difference of opinion.

If the people who run this debating site want to censor people who post here, then I believe that they should be honest enough to state that in very bold letters on the headline of the page. Anything less than that is nothing short of being dishonest – and that is just my own personal opinion.

In fact, if I get banned from this site for expressing my personal opinion in a debated subject, then this site really wasn't worth being on in the first place.

Welcome to the whim of the debate it out censors . . . my original comments on this subject still have yet to make to the fore.

Four days and counting – are we being censored for political correctness?

Welcome to the progressives interpretation of freedom.

Sarcasm greatly intended.

Your running battle with me hasn't been limited to this arena. Go back and re-read dozens of personal attacks on me or on others. I'm not offended, but I point it out because its a common refrain for you to insult your debate opponents when they don't hold your views, or in particular (and far more annoying) to otherwise refuse to respond to the actual debate points they raise. You've done the same with this subject. If it makes you happy to not respond to points and feel as though you've accomplished something, fine. It would not leave me with a sufficiently pleased feeling about my point of view to know that someone out there misinterprets it to the point of finding it untenable and irrational.

It's more than possible that expressing your opinions was sufficient work in your eyes, but you rarely limit yourself to that and it would be useful if you could more firmly defend the positions you hold (without attacking and defaming the people who oppose them).

Five days later, they finally post it – and SUPRIZE – STS disagrees with me 100% as usual.

Your argument here is completely invalid as you would 1) punish the victim of a violent rape for the rest of her life by making her carry to term the result of that rape, and 2) punish the child who is the result of that rape. Your argument in the case of violent rape does nothing but legitimize the rapist and the act of the rape itself. Not good by anyone's standards.

Furthermore, your statements that the victim is responsible for being raped is totally absurd and inhuman – shared only by those who believe in the cult of Islam (Sharia Law always blames the female in the case of rape and dictates that she be stoned to death as punishment for being raped – and that makes about as much sense as your last paragraph in your invalid argument)

The point I'm making is that a rape victim is probably as unwilling to carry to term a pregnancy as someone who say, got drunk and didn't want to be pregnant, or had their birth control fail, etc. Why are you willing to draw a distinction there? The innocent fetus did not rape the rape victim, why are you willing to punish it by denying that life the ability to exist? Presumably the violation of the mother is at issue, but it seems hypocritical to me that this distinction matters and the others do not to pro-lifers.

I did not say that a rapist was responsible for their rape. In fact I said "the mom isn't responsible". What you are in effect doing is putting an arbitrary line on the value of fetal life and declaring that fetal life created unwillingly is of less value. Which weakens your argument that "life begins at conception" if that's the point you want to make.

The crux of my argument is that it has nothing to do with "responsibility", because the fetal value is essentially the same in a rape case versus some other voluntary abortion demand. Making this hand waving about who is being responsible (say by forcing an alcoholic mother or a teenage girl who forgot to take one of her pills to carry to term) distracts from your primary argument. That is, that human life begins at X point and has inherent value from that point forward. If you are being logically consistent, I don't see why there should be a distinction and exception for rape victims under your theory.

In other words, it is YOU who ought to be holding rape victims "responsible" under the statement you gave previously, or you need to acknowledge that there are much broader reasons that should be accepted for abortions to be carried out if you're not willing to do this. I personally don't hold rape victims responsible nor did I suggest that we should. I suggested that you do, or at least that your basis for abortion restriction suggests you ought to expand that restriction further than you do at present. Or admit that your restriction basis is totally arbitrary and meaningless if applied en masse.

I also like how you selectively ignored the entire first part of the argument in order to force a straw man out of the second part, creating an argument I did not make to engage with.

The fact that there are large numbers of miscarriages occurring naturally, or zygotes that fail to even implant in the embryonic lining of the uterus and hence a failed pregnancy before it even begins tends to make this idea of "life beginning at conception" absurd and means the scientific fact is you claim as support is empirically false. But you ignored this entirely… curious.

What about serious health considerations for either the mother or the fetus?

By trying to redirect the argument with false claims will get you nowhere. There is no known scientific information – other than in the minds of those who wish to kill the innocent unborn indiscriminately – that has ever been gathered to support your claims of so many zygotes (a purely scientific term, mind you, that is designed to ignore the fact that it is a human being) have failed to take hold in the uterus. Therefore my ignoring that is more than justified. I am surprised that you haven't used claims of male masturbation to support your irreverent logic (not sure if I used the right word here, but I think you will understand what it is I am trying to say).

Human life does, in fact, begin at inception. Within the first few seconds of the sperm and the egg melding the cells begin to divide according to the newly acquired DNA instructions. If you do not believe me, then ask an OB/GYN practitioner – aka a "baby doctor". It is something that is being taught in almost all medical schools, worldwide.

Incidentally, I do not spend a whole lot of time on this computer, and when I do it is not always at the same times, so as a result I usually do not go back to find out what other people have said about my personal opinions – so do not take it personally when you delve deeply into an argument/debate and I seem to ignore your last comments. It just happens to be something I do quite often and not meant as an insult to anyone.

As for some of my comments that seem to be personally directed at some posters on here, well it just irks me that there is such a lack of common sense among the youth (those younger than me – yes, I am an old fart) in this day and age of enlightenment. It also angers me very much about the amount and scope of misinformation that seems to be politically motivated that is being dispersed in our institutes of higher learning nowadays, and yes I have seen some of your comments that seem to echo some of my feelings at times directed at one young student (or so he claims to be) that is currently enrolled in NYC College who has a tendency to espouse some rather ridiculous statements.

Dang! That was just too long winded for me. I am outta here. Enjoy your weekend.

Yes it does begin at "inception"… I'm glad we agree on something. Tautological though it may be…

Unfortunately in your haste to ignore the scientific community and research on pregnancy in animals and humans and focus on my "irreverence" I'm pretty sure you did not actually concede anything here by changing terms from "conception". I can ask any doctor or researcher. They will tell me what I told you. Not what you seem to believe they will tell me. I know this because I've got a couple of them in the extended family. There are doctors who claim otherwise, but they're typically religiously motivated in that belief.

It is a religious or otherwise arbitrary claim that establishes life beginning at any point prior to birth. Most people are comfortable with some point of "viable life" via functional organs appearing, hence the legality of abortions prior to that point being a matter of little dispute for most people.

I did actually insinuate masturbation ought to be an issue for you too. But it's kind of a silly point to think that we should go around forcing people's eggs and sperm to procreate or to monitor the health of mothers (or rather, all child-bearing aged women) by forcing them to avoid all unhealthy behaviors or substances, etc. I don't feel I should have to make it in order for you to understand the folly of your logic. In effect this line of argument is the same silly argument that life begins at conception. Life, or the building blocks for it, begin when sperm and egg are formed, not when they are joined. What we're concerned about is sentience and the peculiar status of human life, and not when "life begins". Scientific inquiries into that question of sentience put it at around 23 weeks for the development of higher brain functions considered necessary for sentient beings. Not at conception.

Anything which puts it at conception basically is confusing theology with science.

I note also this statement, which I think most polite people in both the anti-abortion or pro-choice camps would take exception to…. "other than in the minds of those who wish to kill the innocent unborn indiscriminately"
1) Probably almost all people who are pro-choice probably would not wish to kill the "innocent unborn". These are not lightly decided procedures and callous actors indifferent to the prospect that they may be forging a new life. There's a reason why almost all abortions are prior to the 24th week, and still the overwhelming majority prior to the 16th. It's because people are uncomfortable with the decision after these points and share some of your squeamishness with it.
2) Almost nobody in this camp expresses a desire that we would be doing so indiscriminately, involuntarily, etc.
When I see the pro-life stunt of putting an "abortion" up to a public vote (surrounding it with the most bizarre circumstances I can think of someone actually wanting to abort in the first place), and see pro-life people such as yourself stating that the desire of legal abortion is a culture of death or to kill and murder indiscriminately (and then see this conflated with your statements on Muslims or immigrants… ) I tend to find it annoying.

Yours is a very illogical world. One I could never live in.

Since no human is capable of producing life (since miscarriages can occur),I do not believe that it is in the best interest to end a life. Now, since people will always choose what is worse for them until they see the direct consequence of their actions, they will participate in sexual relations without thought to the consequence of said actions and produce children.

One cannot ascertain or limit the potential of a child since influences external and innate will fashion this child. Beethoven was deaf but that did not stop him from writing timeless masterpieces which are a sensory experience to be had. Concerning abortions and the question at hand, federal funds, in my opinion, should not be used for the purpose of ending life. It shows an endorsement of the action which, indirectly, affirms the action using money that does not belong to them.

I am in favor of giving states the right to choose whether to accept or decline abortion funding but I do not believe funds on the national level should support these causes. We have more important things to preoccupy our minds with (such as China's rise to the world power) then to focus and finance the termination of human life.

Why should the people have to pay for the lack of self-control of another? Although I myself participate in such actions, I do not pretend that if I catch something or cause life to come forth that I would be bailed out by the people. This is going to need to stop.

I'm not even sure what the first argument means. "no human is capable of producing life?" so…. what are we fighting over?

Nor do I see that having sexual relations is a net worse for them, as the direct consequences such as possible pregnancy can be significantly reduced (without resorting to abortions or state funding therein). That will tend to change the cost-benefit analysis of consequences far more efficiently to a point where sexual contacts can be had and enjoyed effectively without these considerable risks. That large numbers of people do in fact consider the possible consequences of their actions and do seek to avoid them does seem to be a problem for this argument that somehow they are not thinking responsibly over the long-term.

Meanwhile. .your second argument doesn't have anything to do with either state funding or abortion. It has to do with child-raising. Pro-choice advocates routinely sink down to the same level and declare "what if it's Hitler!" in an utterly useless game that takes both sides away from what the core issue is. It matters very little to the abortion discussion how people raise their children after they are born in pursuit of "potential".

By and large what we're talking about is not greatness or infamy, nor "potential", but rather the mundane production of new human beings by other human beings. It is foolish to consider each such life to be of significant positive or negative impact at large upon the human race as a whole on the level of Einstein or Beethoven, or Stalin or some such as their opposite because very few lives will rise to this level and many who might could just as easily be squelched by living out their lives as they could be terminated before they begin. Rather we should act to consider only that life's potential for significant impact positively or negatively upon the people who must choose to raise and provide for it, because these consequences are much more certain than discussions over large scale potentials. Local knowledge seems best to rely upon in either case.

The first statement of fact is to be taken literally. Humans can come together and have sexual relations, but this does not ensure that a life will come forth. Because of the miracle of birth, it is then, in my opinion, offensive a thought to blot out that life without consideration of what that child may accomplish.

It is obvious that my second paragraph was not in relation to with "either state funding or abortion"; reason for the follow-up of that thought stating, "Concerning abortions and the question at hand". The "utter useless games" of ascertaining the power of a human life in the guise of a child is of significance since we cannot play God and decide who should live. Of course, this is a viewpoint which is contested but be that as it may, funding should not fall from federal dollars to pay-off the mistakes of individuals lacking restraint.

You seem to lack the basic understanding of potential and what that potential can do for a community. Not every Beethoven or Einstein is known at the national level. There are persons who do the work of Mother Theresa or Ghandi and die without name recognition. These are persons who have changed their community from the inside out without looking for the praise. There are persons (many of which I know) who go around helping others to finding living opportunities, programs for help through government assistance, who give time and resource for strangers in order to eliminate suffering during holidays and otherwise. And many such examples herein exist.

So to attempt to ignore the effect each life can have on its community is boorish and desirous of modern, hard-working angel workers.

You clearly have no idea how children are created for the first part. I recommend a course on biology and human anatomy. It's hardly a "miracle" that babies are only born out of some sexual contacts and not others. In fact, it's hardly even surprising. I suppose it is logical if it is seen as a miracle to assume that it would be offensive to blot such things out. But it's not much of a miracle in reality. It's sort of like how airplanes stay in the sky from my perspective. It's kind of neat when you consider it in all its particulars, but it's not exactly shocking that sometimes women get pregnant when they have sexual intercourse, or sometimes not. Or that sometimes they stay pregnant and sometimes not.

I do not lack for an understanding of potential. I understand instead that most people will not be so noble in life as to be worth much of anything to the rest of us except as invisible agents living out their lives. The insertion of Beethoven's and Gandhi's and so on (or conversely Hitler's and Mao's) is distracting from the fact that most people are basically worthless and interchangeable except to people who know them directly or who they impact directly. Hence it is these people (ie, possible parents) who should have the greatest amount of control over whether there will be a life valued to its fullest potential or not and not our own distant analysis.

As far as "individuals lacking restraint", so would you fund birth control? I would consider birth control a behavior of "restraint", or at least a means of avoiding the funding for abortions. Or is this part of that miracle business that somehow condoms and pills interfere with too much for your tastes and that somehow nobody is to use them as a means of responsible family planning or parenting?

You're concern for my knowledge of the manner of conception would seem to be as scanty and lacking in substance in the gritty reality of world living. It is a miracle for a child to be born because although the scientific components intertwine forming that human and though the synapses collide, fuse, and revolve according to their design, only God alone can put life into that child- for this reason, I call it a miracle.

Recently on the news a gentleman (whose last name I believe is Duke) shot at certain Florida board members. According to natural science the first man should have been dead; the bullets scraped the papers on his desk in his direction and still he did not die.

You're airplane example is another miracle. Yes scientifically you can explain why a plan should defy gravity to its face and soar on the wings of the morning through the cloudy sky, but you cannot ensure that every bolt and piece or the fuselage itself will work as should be. In other words, when one steps into a plane, they step within in faith that they will experience all things as usual.

When one intends on having sex for reproductive purposes, one hopes the conception will bring life. But that is not enough to keep these miracles occurring as they usually do. That was the point I was making since the first response to your comment.

Concerning birth control, I have only to say that people are sentient, conscious beings- my morals and values lead me in a certain way which allow me to believe after a certain manner. I cannot legislate my beliefs over others so birth control (which would equate to a responsible method for preventing impregnation) would not be an idea I would be opposed to; however, there are also legitimate reasons for using such precautions.

I'm getting the impression that you're of the "magnets how do they work" camp on science.

Because this "cannot ensure that every bolt and piece or the fuselage itself will work as should be" is blatant and deliberate ignorance on your part. Every bolt and piece works as it should because those pieces are designed to perform and maintained to stay that way. When they fail it is because they were improperly manufactured or not properly maintained (or possibly because of unrelated weather phenomena). It is not a miracle or a mystery to be pieced together, and if it were, I should doubt anyone would fly, matters of faith to the contrary.

Aeronautic engineering, like most mechanisms, is a fully predictable and repeatable scientific process. A similar object occurs with reproduction, a biological mechanism.

But since you do not accept the validity of mechanisms operating in a predictable and scientific manner…. arguing that there's a scientific explanation for how a birth occurs, how fertilization works, how a life is created through reproductive process naturally doesn't seem to be of great importance to you.

Your understanding of the shooting incident is also horribly flawed. I don't see any evidence that anyone was actually shot except for Duke. Shooting another human being is not exactly something most people spend a lot of time doing. I'm not surprised he missed. I'm not sure you can say with any confidence, much less your certainty, that "According to natural science the first man should have been dead". Because you don't know where "natural science" predicts the bullets would have gone based on how he fired his weapon (and how the intended target reacted, and was already seated, etc).

Perhaps you have never heard of a design flaw which would then excuse the profound lack of understanding perpetuated by your comment concerning fuselage and bolts. Notwithstanding you made a definite and absolute statement in your second paragraph first sentence, then betrayed it with your second sentence.

I have a healthy appreciation of mechanic operations which work predictable according to their original design; I am not thick in reasoning, however, and incapable of having a healthy dose of precaution when it comes to any such mechanism supposedly running automatically since I know accidents happen.

Overconfidence is a soup I stay away from since the first sips are soothing but the base is latent poison. I would suggest you subscribe to similar dietary constraints.

My understanding of the shooting incident in Florida in regards to the School board was substantiated by the video shown and the several news stations (from both aisles of partisanship) affirming similar accounts of the trajectory of the bullet.

I would love to debate the intricacies of that situation in-depth but I perceive that you are of the "speaking for speaking's sake" campaign and I cannot see how enriching the experience can be since we are straying to diverse topics.

The principal which is being discussed from afar (which you have avoided in every stance you have taken with me in every topic to which I have responded on this site) is where is your faith? Do you believe in creationism or evolution? This will settle the question of abortion over which no intellectual progress (from the reading of your rebuttals) is being made.

Creationism is folly (not even in a funny way). I do not "believe" in evolution but rather I accept that the empirical evidence is very heavily in support of it. It's not a relevant question however because creationism does not equal pro-life and the study of evolutionary biology does not equal pro-choice stances (in fact, large numbers of "pro-choice" people would not have or condone abortions for themselves or for a woman in their life who gets pregnant or would require very extreme circumstances to do so). There are a whole host of philosophical or logical assumptions missing to make those presumptions and to presume that it matters at all to the discussion.

I have not "avoided" disclosing my religious indifference (avoiding would imply that you've somehow made it a topic of discussion or tried to, or that somehow I have) but rather have made it very obvious that I find your religious perspectives foolish and useless sidetracks into metaphysics (and subjective beliefs therein) instead of discussions relating to the actual topics at hand. I've long since determined where you stand on these issues, and I don't expect that any progress will be made, particularly if you keep sidetracking by demanding my religious perspectives as though they are useful information. That's why I haven't disclosed where I do stand myself. It's immaterial to the topic so far as I'm concerned because all such a discussion results in is people talking past one another. I have no use or interest in your personal religious views. They are yours to keep, preferably to yourself.

If they inform your perspectives, that's fine. But don't expect that I will find them particularly useful or convincing rationale, or even interesting to contemplate and diverting topics. Because I do not. Thus far they very much resemble the magnets meme I mentioned earlier as though you reject the concepts of rationalism, empiricism, or just plain technology as objects of faith rather than reason. "Accidents"… are the things I described. I have no idea what you're talking about that a machine, designed to perform repeated objects with many moving parts would fail in a non-expected way. Mechanisms and machines when they fail do so in an expected way. It's not that hard to figure out after the fact that this little widget here broke down after years of use, and so on.

The world you are describing essentially requires that you wouldn't even walk out your front door without that an act of faith opens the door, or applies the brakes on your car, or turns on your lights or computer or TV, and so on. That's not even a fun thought experiment. It's like a world where cause and effect do not exist, laws of physics or biological processes are entirely arbitrary as a result. I guess that's possible if you don't experience time to experience a world like that, but it's not exactly very interesting to the rest of us if that's the world you live in.

The evolutionary theory (upon which leans the fat of the "empirical evidence" offered contrary to creationism) cannot explain why otherwise healthy, functioning beings can die "of natural causes", cannot explain why the sun continues to burn (without know how the supply of the burning agent continues to feed it after 5,000 years, cannot explain why the heart keeps functioning regardless of brain conditions, is incapable of explaining what man is (whether soul or animal or both) etc.

The Bible (which you have come to call subjective metaphysics) explains these things and more. Of course one would have to believe in the Bible and its authority to come to this conclusion but that is beyond the point. In a conversation in which we are discussing the subject of abortion, its right, and dealings, it should not be reluctantly that the topic is pursued from a different perspective or standpoint.

Like the five blind men and the elephant, we can all touch the same matter from different perspectives and get a different result of the same ideal- this is not incorrect to jump from the elephant's snout to its tail to draw more feedback, this is the way I interpret sensitive issues- by their secular importance and its sacred significance.

Personal belies are not meant to entertain, they are to form a foundation, or (as per the Bible) is profitable for reproof, instruction, and correction- that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto every good work. Naturally, a believing individual would include the working of political affairs into this explanation (found in 2 Timothy 3:16).

In the business world, you see a lot of the unexpected malfunctions of which I spoke: the many different products being recalled by the millions are not because dealers had foreknowledge of possible detriments to the car design, they simply overlooked certain mechanical things which allowed for a car which acts contrary to its design.

Other such examples I have but I want to focus on something which you have said which I find important and noteworthy: "The world you are describing essentially requires that you wouldn't even walk out your front door without that an act of faith opens the door" There is a comic I once saw in which a little girl is explaining time to her little brother.

He is sitting down as she stands next to a calendar pointing through the day with a pencil. And she says these epic words to him," Yesterday was the past, tomorrow is the future but today is a gift; that's why it is called the present." This concept epitomizes my point concerning the nature of live; you can say that you will be taking a trip to the country the next year but if you die before then or fall gravely ill, will you be able to go through with your plans?

My point was that you cannot stand with absolute certainty within any matter and declare absolute things without speaking foolishly for as it is written, "Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth." (Proverbs 27:1 KJV)

That is why it is well to speak in the future with humility and consciously of the finite nature of life. Beliefs and morals may be shunned and ridiculed in the media today to the point where the people view them and those who subscribe to them as foolish and "not fun" but these are the very morals which almost every President affirmed and helped build America into the powerful nation that it is today. Lack of interest in these things has helped to increase the crime rate in America (thus adding extra expenses through taxation of the people) has helped to increase teenage pregnancies, drug addiction, media promiscuity and a slew of affairs are related to a lack of foundation which the Bible does.

America is seeing ugly times and every time Christian faith is pushed back the nation only degenerates and receives a crippling blow economically since every faction of government and business is interwoven. I pray that we are not "speaking past each other". i am reading all your words and trying to learn of the world and different positions by what you say; there is nothing wrong in touching the elephant's body or snout and coming up with different conclusions- we can still find common ground and learn through each other's entirely different perspectives.

We must coexist or we will never be a civilized nation in a civilized world.