How very GENEROUS of you.

So in some cases it is God's will that a baby should die, and thus abortion is acceptable. God wants that particular baby dead, so it's okay to help it along. But only when you think so. Even when it is not a medical emergency (rape).

So, anyone have any input to the spontaneous generosity topic?

Don't mean to intrude on Foo's trolling, but I have a question miner:


Why do you make exceptions?
I feel it's an important question.
Not attacking you, or setting you up for attack.
Sorry if it turns out that way.

In this video concerning the new findings being discussed that the non-religious are more compassionate and generous than religious. I noticed the participants failed to mention any church run programs that aid local communities and abroad in times of natural disasters..such the Helping Hands sponsered by my church for example were among the very first to arrive in Haiti and New Orleans before the federal government did.

While it is true that many non religious are in fact more christlike than many who claim to be followers of Christ..the study I find has holes in it and does not take account the good the religious do in service to God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAO9E7b4vG8

This study

Not at all Feral..it is an honest question to ask...I make abortion as a last option in the case for rape based on certain situations..especially if it is agreed by all parties involved when abortion might be the only option..when the trauma and shock over a enforced and violent event such as rape is too much for the mother and it could endanger her physical, mental and psycological well being...if she be forced to carry the child to full term.


But that's only my opinion.

You mean the holes of it not including every charitable act performed by every person, ever?

Scientific studies are ALWAYS limited in scope. They put forward a hypothesis, design an experiment with a manageable scope, then draw conclusions based on the results.

All parties except the baby?
And pregnancy and birth is dangerous to women physically and mentally even if they weren't raped.
Where do you make a distinction? And why?

Are not scientific studies supposed to be done objectively and without bias and not selectively as this study seems to imply?

It's not selective. It's controlled. A controlled experiment.

Well there is always the adoptive route which would be more preferable imo than abortion. But in the case of rape where especially the rape victim is a minor as they are not fully mature enough psycologically and emotionally to handle a raped induced pregnancy...the abortion can be considered but only when all other options are considered first.

Also abortion can be considered when the child is born with such severe abnomalities that any chances of long term survival or any length of survival at all is not feasable...that is more than a few days of needless suffering for all involved including the child itself...then it is in the best interest for all to terminate the pregnancy.

Then by your own admission...it is limited and the study does not make its findings as a proven fact.