George "exactly my sentiments, Suseonline, when atheist scientists let their delusions about (a non-existent) God interfere with how they explain science to non-specialists in order to “try and prove their views"."

What are 'non-specialists' George?
Sorry, but how on earth can anyone 'prove' the existence of any god?
Surely, belief in these supposed invisible beings is merely a faith thing?

I doubt many scientists have made any declarations of their belief (or not) in gods during the course of their scientific work, unless they were specifically asked to prove or disprove something by religious organisations?
Surely that sort of thing should not get in the way of real scientific studies...

Suzeonline,

>>What are 'non-specialists' George?<<

Laymen (and laywomen, if you like), “persons without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject”, in my dictionary.

>> how on earth can anyone 'prove' the existence of any god?<<

I never claimed you could, I just used the verb “prove” because you did it, hence the quotation marks.

>>Surely, belief in these supposed invisible beings is merely a faith thing?<<

Faith is a state of mind. It is related to belief in God which is an a priori world-view assumption (nothing to do with science). Only philosophically unsophisticated people connect it with “belief in invisible beings” and accept or reject belief in God on such level. You can speak of invisibility only in the context where visibility makes sense, as in the realms dealt with by science: quarks and electrons are invisible, our bodies are visible.

>> I doubt many scientists have made any declarations of their belief (or not) in gods during the course of their scientific work,<<

So do I, however I was hinting at scientists writing popularising books, giving such lectures or participating in popular debates, where they bring God in the context of whatever they are popularising, arguing for His existence, but today more often against it. Nevertheless, I find the public lectures by e.g. Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss and their arguments rather entertaining, even amusing for their lack of understanding of what belief in God means for an educated contemporary e.g. Christian scientist.

>> unless they were specifically asked to prove or disprove something by religious organisations? <<

I don’t know of a religious organisation asking a scientist to prove or disprove something of a purely religious nature. On the other hand, there are many communities (not only religious) built on sharing a particular or general, political or ethical view who seek out those scientists whose findings can be used to support their original political or ethical position.

Breast cancer is NOT the only serious abortion
risk. Premature & low-birth-weight newborn
babies have higher risk of crippling CP (Cerebral
Palsy). One study (1972) reported that women
with prior IAs (Induced Abortions) have reduced
risk of delivering a low-birth-weight baby. One
hundred forty-five (145) studies reported that prior
IAs increase the risk of premature delivery or
low-birth-weight; URL:
http://justiceforkids.webs.com/chapter4140studies.htm
Thus, it is clear that abortions increase the risk of
crippled (CP) newborns in later pregnancies.

In a study never challenged via letters to the editor
U.S. & Canadian researchers estimated in 2007 that
there were 1,096 excess cases of Cerebral Palsy in
U.S. infants born in 2002 due to their mothers' prior
abortions; URL:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=calhoun%20shadigian%20rooney
. Australian researchers such as Judith Lumley (PhD)
and Lyndsey Watson (PhD) have shown in studies that
induced abortions raise premature delivery risk in
later pregnancies.

Stop crippling Aussies newborn babies by damaging
women's reproductive systems by surgeries never
even proven safe via published animal studies; URL:
http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf .

Brent4life, what a crazy website you suggest we see!
No one ever said having abortions was good for women's, or their future pregnancies health did they?
Of course previous abortions cause problems in some future pregnancies, although there is no medical proof that they cause cerebral palsy at all.

Smoking or drinking alcohol by either parent has been proven to cause low birth weights and brain disorders with newborns in far greater numbers than from any other reason, so I assume you are also anti smoking and anti alcohol?

Pro-choice people like myself are not pro-abortion at all.
I would not have had an abortion myself, but would not presume to decide for anyone else because it is not my business.

I would prefer to advocate strongly for contraception and more assistance for women with unwanted pregnancies, but the way some people in society look down on single mothers, but don't seem to feel the same way about the fathers of these babies, is it any wonder the abortion rate is still too high?

"..previous abortions cause problems in some future pregnancies.."

Even if that might be so it could well be that the particular terminations that are implicated were not performed in the sort of clinic or according to best practice of the relevant professional medical colleges. Or that there were other factors that predicated a less than satisfactory outcome at the time and for the future. There could have been a higher rate of infection for instance that could have been vastly reduced in more satisfactory circumstances.

It is likely for instance that there could be a higher proportion of poorly educated and lower socio-ecconomic status women who are more prone for all sorts of reasons not just their own choices, to suffer more problems. However they would likely have suffered more problems in a normal pregnancy. Who is to say that their capacity to handle an infant would have been optimal or even adequate anyhow, which would have resulted in other problems?

Mind you, if legal termination was not available along with the appropriate medial advice, treatment and aftercare, the incidence and seriousness of problems would be far worse. That is a known fact.

That brings me to my next point, which is the probable irrelevance of factoids from overseas (they are factoids where limitations are not divulged and discussed) to Australia with its excellent health facilities.

I am a layman, but I know that any medical procedure carries a risk, but then the other available options - which are sometimes beyond State regulation and control (doctors and hospitals are strictly supervised in Australia) - are almost certain to be more risky and with the consequences sometimes terrible.

All of the facts need to be placed on the table.

Dear otb,

Well said!

Bravo!