Isn't this story a couple weeks old?
How many children have been removed from Foster Homes for abuse since this story was first published?
Riiiight. If we don't destroy our undwanted children then they end up abused.
How come child abuse has risen some 300% since abortion became legal then?
Yeah.
Sparkle - Please do not tell me that your are in any way surprised that jandrew is attempting to deflect attention away from the point you were making.
Is the class action litigation bar going to take on the makers of this pill, and all of the groups that were pushing it through, ie. NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood ?
Seven people dead in how many years, with how many hundreds of thousands of uses, at least some of which did not show up for mandatory follow-up visits? People die during child birth and just about every other disease or drug known to man more often than RU-486. Your objection has nothing to do with deaths. It has to do with the fact that it is an abortion pill. If this pill were for ANY other use, that kind of miniscule death rate wouldn't even make news, and you know it.
800 women have been injured. This isn't about comparing it to maternal deaths, this is about a drug that is showing itself to be harmful.
If this were a drug for something else and 7 women had died since it's use began in 2000, it would be have been pulled and you know it.
Do you ever stop to think about what you are defending?
For example, compare the millions who took ephedra supplements and the deaths related. They pulled it.
807 plaintiffs would have a hard time convincing the Federal Courts that they were a "class" as each of the victims were injured or killed for a different reason (most of which is failure to follow the directions that come with the drugs.)
The drug is far less dangerous than many which remain on the market today. 7 deaths and 800 injuries in 5 years (and that information is coming from a staunch Anti-abortion advocate with an agenda, so it's not "my estimate") is a pretty good track record for a new drug.
When viagra hit the market it resulted in how many heart attacks and strokes? As of 2003 it was 564 in the U.S. They also did a study which indicated that Viagra makes the blood platelets aggregate, which would lead to an increased incidence of heart attack and stroke for those at risk. They still sell the drug.
Don't kid yourself that this is anything other than anti-choice zealots using their media power to scare women into unwanted pregnancies.
As to the increase in reported child abuse....
Much better public education,
Much more public awareness,
New laws requiring teachers, doctors, and others to report,
Fewer stay at home parents,
Better funding for Social Services departments nationwide to investigate and enforce the laws,
Oh, yeah, and abortion is legal......
Where did I put that razor?
The increase in reported abuses in Foster Homes increased at a higher rate than the increase in parental homes.
The Foster Care program is underfunded, and overextended in most states, and can not adequately track, forget supervise, the homes where children have been placed.
You keep right on making sure they stay that way.
hey, you got 3 in a row that time RWS. not bad.
Sorry, jandrew and Erik are right on this one.
For the vast majority of women, especially those that follow the directions, there appears to be little risk of complications.
There's nothing to be breathless about here.
There are over 500 deaths a year from aspirin.
jandrew,
Nice try. 300% increase? Just since 1973. I don't think "public awareness" counts for that. Sorry.
And the abortion pill is fatal 100% of the time for the baby.
andy,
Ok, so you would be fine with your wife taking it (assuming you both agreed) right?
Right. I didn't think so.
Again, a pill used many hundreds of thousands of times at least, one death a year, all or nearly all as a result of not following instructions. It wouldn't even be considered. You would be laughed out of court with stats like that. Ephedra caused a lot more than seven deaths, and that was being used as recommended.
Yes, I would be fine with my wife taking it, if we both agreed.
And the abortion pill is fatal 100% of the time for the baby.
Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with your post about women dying using the pill, even if we disregard the broad use of the term "baby."
Ok, so you would be fine with your wife taking it (assuming you both agreed) right?
Right. I didn't think so.
Based on what I currently know? Yep, and I'd also read the directions with her and watch her for any adverse reactions.
Dr. Michael Greene, professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, estimates that the risk of death from infectious complications of RU-486 is about 1 in every 100,000 uses.
Compare this to pregnancy in the United States, which at least in the mid-80s, had a maternal mortality rate of 14 for every 100,000 pregnancies. A 1994 study in Utah put it at just over 12 deaths per 100,000 pregancies.
By this reckoning, I'd be more stupid to let my wife get pregnant than to let her use the pill.
Sorry, this is just another case of throwing reason out the window because of your religious beliefs.
andy,
Give me a break. About one in every 100,000 SO FAR. It's only been on the market for 6 years.
Comparing maternal deaths, which are a tragedy but not intentional to the deliberate killing a child is ridiculous. And there doesn't have to be anything religious about that.
Plus, I don't believe you for one second that you would let your wife take it.
Give me a break. About one in every 100,000 SO FAR. It's only been on the market for 6 years.
How many years is enough? Give me a number and let's check in then and see how it looks. Deal?
Comparing maternal deaths, which are a tragedy but not intentional to the deliberate killing a child is ridiculous.
The intent behind the action is irrelevant to the danger involved. You said 7 women is too many; I showed that getting pregnant is MUCH more deadly.
Stop moving the goalposts.
And there doesn't have to be anything religious about that.
I agree, there's doesn't. The Raving Atheist is pro-life. That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this post or your initial argument.
Please, bring the goalposts back, we like them on the field and not in the parking lot.
Plus, I don't believe you for one second that you would let your wife take it.
Argument from personal incredulity. Relevance to the discussion at hand? Zero.
Stay on topic, RWS.
Gotta go with andy on this: The "goalposts" set by RWS's post are maternal death rates relative to other widely used medications. The death of the child is an entirely different issue.
Sorry, didn't close my italics tag.
andy,
You're the one who brought up religious beliefs.
You can't compare maternal deaths to a drug. I could say that getting in your car and getting on the freeway is more deadly than sitting and drinking a beer at home. One has nothing to do with the other.
RWS:
The child abuse stat which you provided, and I have not personally sourced, but are taking you at your word on, presumably shows an marked increase in the cases of child abuse which have been reported since 1972.
How many children in the 50's and 60's were taken away from their parents by Social Services because of agressive spankings? There are more than a few today.
The County of Orange's official position is that spanking is child abuse. I have a former client who has a social services file because he gave his niece a pretty good spanking for pulling his daughters hair out in clumps and his brother's wife called the county. There were no allegations that he had ever mistreated a child previously, and no allegations of anything other than a hand to the butt. I didn't represent him in the matter, but helped him adopt later and met some resistance by the county because of his "priors".
How many people had their parenting abilities questioned by the state in 1971 because of differing opinons about corporal punishment for 10 year olds?
But I'm sure the 300% increase has something to do with abortion, right?
I only brought up the killing of the child because jandrew said the drug was "far less dangerous." I'm just pointing out that it IS far more dangerous to the child. A separate issue to be sure, but not moving the goalpost.
jandrew,
There are some 36 MILLION fewer unwanted children today because of abortion. Wouldn't you say that would have an impact? Instead nothing but an increase.
RWS:
When the drug itself negates any possibility of future "maternal death" I would think the comparison is a little more on point than comparing operating a car on the freeway and sitting in you house having a beer.
And if you can't compare "a drug" to the rate of deaths caused by not taking it, what does the FDA use in determining effectiveness of the drug.
Actually, there are 36 Million legal abortions performed. We don't know how many fewer children there actually are.
Rent "Dirty Dancing" some time, it's very educational on the topic of pre-1972 abortion.
RWS, I read where right after these last deaths that Planned Parenthood changed some of their policies regarding this pill. So that tells you something right there.
I only brought up the killing of the child because jandrew said the drug was "far less dangerous."
I'll grant you that RU-486 is probably far more dangerous to an fertalized embryo than Viagra is, but haven't seen any studies done on pregnant women taking Viagra.
You can't compare maternal deaths to a drug.
Huh?
Why not? RU486 is safer than pregnancy. That's just a fact. It's not the only thing to consider, especially for those opposed to abortion like you and me, but it's still a fact.
And you can compare death rates, maternal or otherwise, caused by different drugs to determine if the product is unreasonably hazardous by generally accepted standards.
Jill:
Yeah, it tells me that Planned Parenthood runs a responsible business, is willing to make changes to it's procedures out of concern for it's patients health (despite having next to no legal liability for their failure to show up at scheduled appointments), and is operating a business in the real world (understanding that not all patients will follow their directions) rather than a fantasyland where if the mother simply gets enough counselling she will realize that having gotten knock up by the guy you met that one night at the bar is a sign from some higher power that she should completely change her lifestyle and priorities.
I'm just pointing out that it IS far more dangerous to the child. A separate issue to be sure, but not moving the goalpost.
OK, let's say you're not moving the goalposts. Your remark then falls into the category general obfuscatory tactics, i.e., trying to quickly change the subject because you don't really have a response to andy's critique.
Ok, I posted on his "critique." the point is not whether this pill is less safe or more safe than pregnanies. The point is the FDA has pulled other drugs for less. When women die like this on a new drug we usually pull it.
jandrew,
dirty dancing? Ok..just stupid.
yeah, what do you think is aborted? Geeze..
When women die like this on a new drug we usually pull it.
Now you're just making stuff up. RU486 is not new. It's over 20 years old. From Wikipedia:
The compound was discovered by researchers at Roussel Uclaf of France in 1980 while studying glucocorticoid receptor antagonists. Clinical testing began in 1982. It was first licensed in France in 1988, for use in combination with prostaglandin. Then on October 26 of that year, Roussel Uclaf stated that it would abandon distribution of the drug. It bowed to pressure from the government of France two days later to resume distribution. Mifepristone was approved in a number of other European countries as well, starting with the United Kingdom and Sweden in 1991 and followed by Germany in 1992 and most other European countries in 1999.
Jandrew, sorry I'm not too impressed with Planned Parenthood. They've basically been shown to lie about things when it suits them, (stats, medical necessities for partial birth abortion, etc.) and ignore (not report) statutory rape, etc.
Not impressed. And not buying into their noble "motives." either. On anything. You can be impressed. I'm not.
"In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else."
— Ron Fitzsimmons
Executive Director for the National
Coalition of Abortion Providers
The New York Times, February 26, 1997
I got smug? When have I not been smug on my site? 
I didn't think so either, but andy seems to see religion in everything and for an atheist I have to wonder about that.
You make no bones about your religious beliefs, and you've just recently been arguing about John Kerry being pro-choice when the Catholic Church is against abortion, so - please - spare me the persecution.
YOU make religion a driving force in your beliefs, not me.
he seems to think comparing apples to oranges makes his point,
Comparing the risks of ending a pregnancy with the risks of carrying to term is not apples and oranges, nor is the comparison to other medications and their ill effects.
If we follow your apples/oranges concepts, we can't, for example, say that air travel is safer than car travel because - hey - a plane isn't a car!
But, you know what? We can - and we do.
As for the rest of your addendum, uh, great? Here's my response: the women were not fatalities, and I'm sure if I added the number of pregnant women who have life-threatening complications but whom survive, pregnancy would look even MORE dangerous than this pill.
As for the FDA removing drugs with fewer risks, which ones? Why were they removed? And simply because they perhaps rashly removed drugs earlier we should endorse knee-jerk medicine this time?
I'm afraid your addendum is rather like a Playboy centerfold; it looks pretty on paper but you can't really do anything useful with it.
Further, if your post was about the FDA removing drugs with fewer deaths, then you should have said that. That you did not say that but instead lamented a cry of woe for women, as if they are forced to take the pill, shows that this latest assertion is false and just indulgent CYA.
You ought to pay attention to Michael; he's a bright guy, AND he's on your side of the debate.
What I lack, andy, is your stamina.
Michael,
You know I meant 6 yrs since it's been approved and on the market.
andy,
I may make no bones about my religious beliefs, but that wasn't a part of this post and I would feel this way even if I weren't religious. I was pro-life before I became Catholic.
Asking how many women had to die to pull this drug was the main question here.
You seem to think that there is no "reason" involved with asking this question. This "addendum" had "reason" from the New England Journal of Medicine about RU-486 dangers. That isn't religion, that's medicine.
RWS:
That appears to be a letter to the editor written by Paul F. Timmerman of Greenacres, not an "article".
You have basically provided another persons unsourced opinion about the danger of this drug as defence of yours. I don't think anyone attacked you as being the only one who believed this, simply that the belief is not based on a valid factual analysis.
What I lack, andy, is your stamina.
Yeah, my wife is lucky that way. 
jandrew,
Does it being an "article" or a "letter" make anything referenced to it untrue?
You know I meant 6 yrs since it's been approved and on the market.
So, the European experience with issuing the medication doesn't count? I've heard of nationalistic pride, but that's just being silly.
This "addendum" had "reason" from the New England Journal of Medicine about RU-486 dangers. That isn't religion, that's medicine.
OK, fine - let's get Tylenol off the shelves:
"Nevertheless, acetaminophen overdose is one the most common causes of OTC drug poisoning in the United States and Britain. More than 30,000 cases per year of acetaminophen overdose are reported to the American Association of Poison Control Centers (Bartlett D 2004). It is a leading cause of liver failure in the Western world and the leading cause of drug-induced liver failure in the United States (Bartlett D 2004)."
Agreed?
The difference is that the FDA is meeting with the Centers for Disease Control and National Institutes of Health on May 11 to review the deaths associated with RU-486, so I'm thinking they might be concerned about this as well.
But you guys go on thinking everything is fine.
And here are some drugs that were pulled:
NeutroSpec, an imaging agent used to diagnose internal infections, was pulled from the market after being linked to two deaths, 20 severe reactions, and 46 other "less" severe reactions.
Tysabri, a drug to treat multiple sclerosis, was pulled from the market on Feb. 28, 2005, after reports that three patients taking it had developed PML, a rare brain disease. Studies published in New England Journal of Medicine in early March reported no additional cases of PML.
Lotronex, the only drug in its class to treat irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), which afflicts approximately 40 million Americans was pulled. About 300,000 people had taken it. About 70 patients had developed severe problems, with five deaths including three possibly linked to the drug.
Bextra was pulled even though an FDA advisory committee voted a few months before that Bextra should remain on the market.
The F.D.A. wouldn't have a political agenda in this administration would it?
You have got to be kidding.
Jandrew - this:
The increase in reported abuses in Foster Homes increased at a higher rate than the increase in parental homes.Is a strawman and you should know it. How is terminating pregnancies the answer to foster home abuse?
The Foster Care program is underfunded, and overextended in most states, and can not adequately track, forget supervise, the homes where children have been placed.
You keep right on making sure they stay that way.
OK, some drugs were pulled. Should they have been? Hard to tell with the limited information provided, as only the IBS drug gives any data useful for comparative purposes (and the end result there was a voluntary recall and programs to mitigate risk, such as informed consent and monitoring).
I'd take your argument more seriously if you had equally breathless posts of condemnation for drugs related to things like IBS than to abortion (but I guess Jesus was never clear on whether or not he approved of constipation and stomach cramps).
"In the past, the FDA had removed other drugs that had a lower number of deaths and complications."
Key words? IN THE PAST........
This just goes to show you that money in politics can kill you. Don't Republicans preach about less oversight for corporate America? You all want businesses to have unfettered freedom to prosper, right? How can corporate America prosper if it's continually hamstrung with the restrictive demands of over zealous watchdog agencies?
Lobbyists for Big Pharma pay congressmen everyday to reject touger conflict of interest rules for reviewers and to loosen the agency's process for reviewing the safety of new drugs.
FDA officers used to say, "Should we approve this drug?" Now it's, "How can we get this drug approved?"
Increased campaign contributions =
Increased drug approvals=
Increased safety problems=
Increased adverse reactions
It did not take long to blame this on that evil boogeyman, big Pharma.
Well, if you don't want to lay the blame on Big Pharma, then how about Daniel Troy? I believe he's still the FDA's chief counsel and was appointed by Bush.
Troy was previously a lawyer for the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. Under his supervision, the number of enforcement letters sent by the agency to stop misleading ads by drug companies has dropped by two-thirds, according to US News and World Report. He's held over fifty private meetings with drug makers since coming to the FDA; his office told the magazine there are "no minutes, no memos, no nothing," on what was discussed.
Fox - Henhouse
The reason this drug stays on the market when far less dangerous (in terms of fatalities) drugs like Ephedra get pulled is because of sheer politics. It's the same reason AIDS is not quarantined or even asked about at our borders, but other diseases that are not communicable at all like most forms of Leprosy are. Just flat out politics at the expense of public safety and reason.
In 2001 Public Citizen asked the FDA to ban ephedra, citing reports of 81 deaths along with other serious medical conditions caused by its use.
What gripes me about the games politicians play is that it took 10 years for congress to hold hearings on the dangers of ephedra...and at least 164 deaths.
In 2002 DANIEL TROY stalled efforts to investigate complaints about ephedra. Only after Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler in February 2003 did congress get off their collective asses and do something.
"Just flat out politics at the expense of public safety and reason."
Amen
ok.....I'm tired.
Only after.... the ephedra-linked death of Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler......
andy,
Being against abortion is as much of a human rights issue as it is a religious one to me.
It's when I get to the death penalty that I only feel that way for religious reasons.
Does it being an "article" or a "letter" make anything referenced to it untrue?
It doesn't make it untrue, just unsupported. There is a world of difference between an article and a letter. In scholarly journals, articles must be vetted by a rigorous peer review process before they are published. Letters are published merely because they are interesting.
You know I meant 6 yrs since it's been approved and on the market.
I guess you mean in the U.S. That does not mitigate your false statement that the drug is "new" when it has been clinically tested and on the market in Europe for 20 years.
The FDA is under great political pressure on this issue - pressure to withdraw mifepristone. The party and administration currently in power are strongly against all abortion, including the early abortion mifepristone is used for.
The simple fact here is that any non-abortion drug would attract far less political pressure. And far less fact-bending too. Need I remind people that even Holly Patterson, poster-girl of the anti-mifepristone campaigners and namesake of Holly's Law, died not from mifepristone but from mis-application of a follow-up drug, misoprostol?
Mifepristone has been used in Europe, as others here have pointed out, for a long time now. So why do we not have national campaigns to ban it? Why do we not have pressure groups talking about the grave danger posed to women, or threats of class-action suits?
Because the pro-life movement here doesn't have the reflexive response of that in the US which distortes the percieved world until abortionists become serial killers drenched in blood and the labels of their drugs turn into the scull-and-crossbones symbol of poison. They are here all right - but they actually think. Then even avoid the naming fallacy by which a freshly-fertalised egg instantly becomes a baby. Most of the time.
Mifepristone is safe. Mostly. The number of deaths is exagerated, and even then is negligable.
Besides, even if pro-life pressure and/or safety concerns do somehow have the drug withdrawn, there are other ways to perform an early abortion.
If you cant stop abortions, why not just make them as painful and unpleasant as possible? Then you can point to the emotional trauma when what should be a two-pill procedure becomes hours of discomfort, misleading lectures on fetal pain and a breast cancer link - the first from a misunderstanding, the second from research that could not be reproduced - and some dirty looks and mutters of 'murderer' from what should be friends and family.
I am not impressed with the behaviour of the pro-life campaigners in the US. They dont debate - they state their view, and demand everyone follow it.
How can the number of deaths be exaggerated? They either died or they didn't.
To say we don't debate is ludicrious. We have debated for 30 yrs. the MSM doesn't report our views very much, but we debate anytime we get a chance.
There was a time when a man hitting his wife was no big deal. We made it socially unacceptable. There is nothing wrong with trying to make something that is a horror on women and and unborn children alike unacceptable.
In fighting abortion we fight for two people. The mother and all that she experiences after an abortion (which the news and studies ignore) and the unborn child which loses everything.
It's when I get to the death penalty that I only feel that way for religious reasons.
Hmmm, I think one can easily be against the death penalty for non-religious reasons - in particular, that the state is not able to equitably and with certainty of guilty administer a punishment that cannot be revoked. No god required.
Hitting your wife is socially unacceptable?
When did THAT happen?
Oh, just checked on that quote from Jill that was presented as a quote about all abortion. He was referring to only partial birth abortion. Nice try at deception though. You're at the top of your game Jill.
andy,
I didn't say one couldn't be against the death penalty for non-religious reasons, I just stated that that is the reason I am against it.
Erik,
I don't think Jill was saying that that quote had anything to do with the RU-486 pill. She was just pointing out how PP lies. That was an example since PP had claimed that PBA was performed for only the most horrific reasons.
RWS:
Are the pro-lifers really attempting to take credit for spousal abuse reporting statistics increasing and convictions rising?
"WE" as a nation, and the greater part of the credit should really go to the femenist movement in the mid-70's brought spousal abuse to the forefront as an issue, and made it socially unacceptable and started to enforce criminal penalties.
How many of the "we" that worked to educate the nation about spousal abuse are the same "we" that are anti-choice? There are far more who are anti-spousal abuse than there are who are anti-choice.
I didn't say one couldn't be against the death penalty for non-religious reasons, I just stated that that is the reason I am against it.
And I was just pointing out that there is a very good and established secular reason for opposing it in practice, which would seem to be a more important consideration than a belief you take on faith. That's all.
"which would seem to be a more important consideration than a belief you take on faith."
Why?
Why?
Errr...something about verifiable real-world evidence being a little more tangible and reliable grounds for belief than something believed without verifiable real-world evidence.
The faith of the Christian is no more convincing than the faith of the Muslim, the Jew, or the Scientologist.
"Errr...something about verifiable real-world evidence being a little more tangible and reliable grounds for belief than something believed without verifiable real-world evidence."
And why is being tangible and verifiable superior to faith?
"The faith of the Christian is no more convincing than the faith of the Muslim, the Jew, or the Scientologist."
So? Whether you're personally convinced does not make what they say wrong, does it now?
" How can the number of deaths be exaggerated? They either died or they didn't."
Through jumping to conclusions. In my post, for example, I point to Holly who is commonly but inaccurately thought to have died as a direct consequence of the mifepristone. The deaths are mifepristone-linked, but are often caused by human error (Holly) or misuse.
"To say we don't debate is ludicrious. We have debated for 30 yrs. the MSM doesn't report our views very much, but we debate anytime we get a chance."
MSM? Also, how you are seen by a pro-choice liberal (me) is arguably more important than how you see yourselves. No point preaching to the choir.
"There was a time when a man hitting his wife was no big deal. We made it socially unacceptable. There is nothing wrong with trying to make something that is a horror on women and and unborn children alike unacceptable."
Please refrain from association fallacy. I see no connection between domestic violence and abortion (other than both tending to rise as income falls). Do not attempt to boost yourself by standing next to an unrelated cause.
"In fighting abortion we fight for two people. The mother and all that she experiences after an abortion (which the news and studies ignore) and the unborn child which loses everything."
My point - the stress of an abortion is due in large part to the pro-life campaigners themselves, and the unborn 'child' cannot lose anything in an early abortion, for it does not yet have anything to lose.
The truth is, most of the Ephedra deaths were due to misuse or error on the part of the people taking them as well, Raven. Yet it was pulled off the shelves. I want this drug gone because of what it does, deaths of the users or not, because someone dies every time it's used. But regarding the FDA, I just wish they were more consistent.
And why is being tangible and verifiable superior to faith?
Easy - take science and religion, compare which of the two has more advanced humanity, be it from lifespan to standard of living to reaching the stars, and get back to me.
So? Whether you're personally convinced does not make what they say wrong, does it now?
Didn't say it did. It means you have no grounds on which to say they are wrong or that you are right. It means you're all babbling aimlessly.
Easy - take science and religion, compare which of the two has more advanced humanity, be it from lifespan to standard of living to reaching the stars, and get back to me.
OK, I'm getting back to you.
Lifespan - Religion (i.e., eternity)
Standard of Living - Religion (i.e., a purposeful life)
Reaching the Stars - Religion (i.e., heaven)
Michael - please provide evidence for this eternal life and heaven. If the evidence is "faith," well, we're right back to my point, aren't we?
Andy:
Yup. Just saying "tangible and verifiable" is not necessarily the only source of truth, even if it's the only one you have confidence in.
Andy:
I have serious questions about organized religion, but do feel it has done much more and has the power to do much more for humanity (when used properly) than Science ever will.
People who are hopeless can not yet be given hope through science. Some people can not yet be taught to treat each other civily through science.
There may come a day, but as for now, I'm going with religion (and not just Christianity, but all religions that have ever existed) as doing more to keep the quality of life on earth better.
"Easy - take science and religion, compare which of the two has more advanced humanity, be it from lifespan to standard of living to reaching the stars, and get back to me."
That's a subjective judgement, based on what you consider better and more effectively advancing humanity. You're trying to weight the question by certain criteria, and that's not a rational thing to do.
You haven't explained why being tangible and verifiable is superior. Just why you consider it so. I didn't ask for your opinion.
"Didn't say it did. It means you have no grounds on which to say they are wrong or that you are right. It means you're all babbling aimlessly."
Morality is entirely based upon supernatural and metaphysical standards. Your complaint is in essence to say 'because your ideas do not have physical form, they are not ideas.'
Religion is the ONLY source to ground the ideas of right and wrong, using an objective, absolute standard. Any other basis is subjective and relative, which reduces it to meaninglessness.
You haven't explained why being tangible and verifiable is superior. Just why you consider it so. I didn't ask for your opinion.
Alas, any rational justification is going to be based on criteria for the sake of comparison just by way of the fact that we have two ideas being held against one another.
Of course, a rational justification of faith is a veritable oxymoron. Either we know things by logic and reason and evidence,or we know them by wishful revelation from conflicting sources with absolutely no rational means to divine (heh, get it?) which source is true and which is false.
If that works for you, hey, great; I'll be hanging with the folks who actually want to understand reality.
Morality is entirely based upon supernatural and metaphysical standards.
Actually, there's quite good evidence that general morality arises as the complexity of the brain increases. Check out Ridley's work on the origins of virtue.
Religion is the ONLY source to ground the ideas of right and wrong, using an objective, absolute standard.
Which is why religions agree so readily on what is moral and what isn't, right?
You were saying something about subjectivity?
Commenting by HaloScan
