Moderator: EG Members
psi29a wrote:Great thing about such topics about 'aborting' Sir Isaac Newton is that while he is credited with many things, he was just the bravest person to put his name on the line with the work that he and those of the royal society had worked on as peers. For example, who's calculus is it, Newton or Leibniz?
So, you would want to bring up Einstein and E=mc^2 too? Again, he was also brave enough to put his name on the work that those who came before him. Some even suggest that he plagiarized the work of others.
Don't get me wrong, they are brilliant people and I'm not discounting their contribution to Science (not religion) but aborting them isn't going to impede scientific advancement. No one scientist works in a vacuum or has a monumental epiphany as some people would like us 'believe'.
By all means do your own research, or take a few classes at your local college.
We as a species can only claim our social & technological advancement through shared knowledge and open communication. Each one of us contributes more or less to the summation of humanity. You abort Newton and Einstein, OK... others will take their place. People are literally waiting in line fill the void.
Rolos wrote:Hey, I think you got me wrong.
What I said was that one of the arguments they wield is that "insert important people name here" abortion could have changed the world.
I never said that was my opinion. May be is just my crapy english writing.
Rolos wrote:First of all, They enfasize a lot about the value of a potential human life and how a fetus is already a Human being just because it holds the potential to become a human being. They also like to preach a lot about how it would have been like if, i dont know, Newton, was aborted.
The Herald wrote:If someone still gets pregnant after the pill and condom and all of the other options out there I really think she should carry it to term because that baby fought hard to be conceived.
The Herald wrote:There's also the problem of how old the child in the womb is. After a certain point the baby can live outside the womb, so killing it at that age, like 5 months, is just down right murder.
The Herald wrote:Then of course there's whether the father wants the baby. Some men actually want children, despite popular belief, and if the child's mother wants an abortion, then what's going to come of that? I guess I'm pro choice, to a certain degree, but we have to be just as pro choice for the men as we are for the women.
Starnum wrote:Yeah, and that's so stupid of them, because it goes against God's principle of Free Will. I agree with Fuji, Pro-choice doesn't equal instant-killing-babies-all-the-time. Ignorant Christians frustrate me.
Buzkashi wrote:Starnum wrote:Yeah, and that's so stupid of them, because it goes against God's principle of Free Will. I agree with Fuji, Pro-choice doesn't equal instant-killing-babies-all-the-time. Ignorant Christians frustrate me.
The ignorant atheists get me more.
The Herald wrote:Another thing to consider about how old the baby is is that the mother made a decision not to abort earlier, so that means she already took responsibility earlier then decided against it. 5 months in a woman should have aborted earlier. There's not many excuses after that for why she should abort.
Return to Current Events & Politics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest