Abortion is the leading cause of death during the pandemic, killing 37 million

[BADecker]

When people started to exist, there weren't any doctors or medicine around to heal them from diseases. Nature did that job.

back in those days. there was no civilisation. women got treated like animals. they were raped and some brave women would find ways to end the pregnancy by their rapist.

yes abortion is not a modern process. its been around longer than you think
as for nature.. now your throwing your god principals away and instead invoking your darwin principals.
you are a funny man. you can never actually understand a topic and form a concrete opinion that will stay.

heck you even say nature should take care of it and not laws. then you say you want laws to take care of it and not nature

well in nature. before laws woman could end their pregnancy. as it was their body.
well in law. abortions are a thing

i find it funny how your nature mindset actually wants more laws to control human decision about their body
i find it funny how your antigov oversight mindset wants more laws to control human decision about their body

you flip flop so much that you are not even making any valid points any more.
so take some time and work out which side of the fence you sit on eg nature or gov oversight.
then come back with a concrete opinion that does not waiver

That's where your problem exists. You simply scan something that is written, and miss a whole lot of what was said, and then you think somebody else flip-flops, when it is really you who is flip-flopping by jumping from point to point without thinking. Isn't it about time that you slow down a little so you can really learn something?

You might even find that when a woman voluntarily - or negligently - gets pregnant, that she has formed a lawful trust with the man as the creator, herself as trustee, and the coming child as beneficiary. It's in the standard setup of her pregnancy.

People can do lots of things. For example, ISIS can go out there and decapitate people. The can do it. But the simple fact that they can do it doesn't necessarily make it right.

The woman can abort, but that doesn't make it right. If the man finds out that she is actively aborting his child against his approval, he would be more right than she to execute her for killing his child. After all, the agreement was to make a child. By aborting, she is not only breaking her agreement, but she is killing a human life.

If she or they didn't want the child in the first place, there is a little thing called abstinence that works real well.

[franky1]

You might even find that when a woman voluntarily - or negligently - gets pregnant, that she has formed a lawful trust with the man as the creator, herself as trustee, and the coming child as beneficiary. It's in the standard setup of her pregnancy.

you must be living in the 1500's
its the womans body. the woman goes through the procedure. its the womans choice.
if men could get pregnant. then yea men can then make that choice. but no man should have power over a woman

no contract is formed between a man and a woman when they have sex, in regards to children.
you must be either a 15yo kid that has yet to have a sexual relationship. or a really repressed old guy that just hates women and never wanted a relationship. because its obvious you have no personal experience of sex

i can imagine you stupidly walking up to a woman in a bar and handing her a contract for her to sign talking about pregnancy.. but here is a tip. talking about pregnancy and contracts on first date is not a good pickup line

when a woman verbally consents to sex. that is an agreement. which is different from a contract. the agreement is for sexual pleasure. its not based on life long/life altering commitments

[Natsuu]

~snip~

1. Seems that we lost the gist of this, somewhere along the line.

2. Exactly! Check the pinks^^.

3. That's a very interesting religion you have there! [religion... "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice" - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t

4. Same chromosomes at the base. In other words, the same pattern is in it all. Just because the pattern for the arms and legs hasn't been executed, yet, doesn't mean that the zygote isn't a person. You are limiting the person's life in a way that is not a certainty.

You don't go out hunting, see a patch of brown in the bushes, shoot without knowing exactly what it is in the bushes, and then wonder why your spouse is late bringing the wild onions to prepare dinner.

When you can prove that a zygote is NOT a stage in the life of a person, then come back with the proof.

5. The studies are wrong, but mostly based on the desire to be wrong. The promise for an adult life is there in the life of the zygote. How long does it take a sperm and egg to combine their chromosomes after the sperm enters the egg? You have about that long before it becomes a person.

6. So, be careful not to harm a person in any way, because it might be considered murder. Dr. Martin Luther of the Lutheran Church explained the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment this way. "We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need [in every need and danger of life and body]." How much closer of a neighbor can you have than the new life supported in Mommy's tummy?

1. Guess who put sentences with no relevance to the topic.

3. back to definition I already counter argued, are we?  

4. Life doesn't mean of body parts, it is about the principle of life itself, the consciousness as I've mentioned long before. Zygotes doesn't have feelings, emotions, consciousness, and even parts as you mentioned. The only thing you can justify is the chromosomes which is just part of growing.

given your argument, Seeds have sets of chromosomes, and you consider them as life form? no. This is same with zygote, yes they have chromosomes but you don't consider them as life form yet.

5. Who would harm a person by fun anyway. Amputations is part of medical procedures, and if done correctly, it can save lives. If you're saying that amputating a body part is murder, then healthcare professionals are murderer?

[BADecker]

~snip~

1. Seems that we lost the gist of this, somewhere along the line.

2. Exactly! Check the pinks^^.

3. That's a very interesting religion you have there! [religion... "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice" - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t

4. Same chromosomes at the base. In other words, the same pattern is in it all. Just because the pattern for the arms and legs hasn't been executed, yet, doesn't mean that the zygote isn't a person. You are limiting the person's life in a way that is not a certainty.

You don't go out hunting, see a patch of brown in the bushes, shoot without knowing exactly what it is in the bushes, and then wonder why your spouse is late bringing the wild onions to prepare dinner.

When you can prove that a zygote is NOT a stage in the life of a person, then come back with the proof.

5. The studies are wrong, but mostly based on the desire to be wrong. The promise for an adult life is there in the life of the zygote. How long does it take a sperm and egg to combine their chromosomes after the sperm enters the egg? You have about that long before it becomes a person.

6. So, be careful not to harm a person in any way, because it might be considered murder. Dr. Martin Luther of the Lutheran Church explained the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment this way. "We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need [in every need and danger of life and body]." How much closer of a neighbor can you have than the new life supported in Mommy's tummy?

1. Guess who put sentences with no relevance to the topic.

3. back to definition I already counter argued, are we?  

4. Life doesn't mean of body parts, it is about the principle of life itself, the consciousness as I've mentioned long before. Zygotes doesn't have feelings, emotions, consciousness, and even parts as you mentioned. The only thing you can justify is the chromosomes which is just part of growing.

given your argument, Seeds have sets of chromosomes, and you consider them as life form? no. This is same with zygote, yes they have chromosomes but you don't consider them as life form yet.

5. Who would harm a person by fun anyway. Amputations is part of medical procedures, and if done correctly, it can save lives. If you're saying that amputating a body part is murder, then healthcare professionals are murderer?

1. I wonder whose topic it is?

3. Are you asking if we should drop #3? Just say it plain out. Or do you want to fill up the pages with continous countering?

4. Did you ever ask a zygote in its language if it has feelings, emotions, consciousness? However, it's obvious that even if you knew its language, you would have enough sensitivity to formulate the questions properly.

So you think that seeds are not alive, but simply are some form of inanimate object, right? But do you have proof? The point is being sure of what you are doing in abortion, so that you don't risk murdering a person.

5. You ask such silly questions. Don't you see that there is a difference between maliciously destroying somebody's limb through amputation, and saving a person's life through amputation? We are not talking about aborting to save somebody's life. Abortion for that has its place. We are talking about arbitrary abortion. We are talking about abortion in general.

[Natsuu]

~SNIP~

1. Guess who put sentences with no relevance to the topic.

3. back to definition I already counter argued, are we?  

4. Life doesn't mean of body parts, it is about the principle of life itself, the consciousness as I've mentioned long before. Zygotes doesn't have feelings, emotions, consciousness, and even parts as you mentioned. The only thing you can justify is the chromosomes which is just part of growing.

given your argument, Seeds have sets of chromosomes, and you consider them as life form? no. This is same with zygote, yes they have chromosomes but you don't consider them as life form yet.

5. Who would harm a person by fun anyway. Amputations is part of medical procedures, and if done correctly, it can save lives. If you're saying that amputating a body part is murder, then healthcare professionals are murderer?

1. I wonder whose topic it is?

3. Are you asking if we should drop #3? Just say it plain out. Or do you want to fill up the pages with continous countering?

4. Did you ever ask a zygote in its language if it has feelings, emotions, consciousness? However, it's obvious that even if you knew its language, you would have enough sensitivity to formulate the questions properly.

So you think that seeds are not alive, but simply are some form of inanimate object, right? But do you have proof? The point is being sure of what you are doing in abortion, so that you don't risk murdering a person.

5. You ask such silly questions. Don't you see that there is a difference between maliciously destroying somebody's limb through amputation, and saving a person's life through amputation? We are not talking about aborting to save somebody's life. Abortion for that has its place. We are talking about arbitrary abortion. We are talking about abortion in general.

1. Yeah, the one who said that abortion is natural selection, maybe dumb or what

3. hmmmmmmmm, well I proved my point, and you just go back in circles, so feel free to.

4. Researches proves that there is no response nor associate actions done as you poke or whisper in the "zyogte", ergo as far as the researches states, it is not living.

5. So we agree that abortion is not a murder, if it is medical related, right?, Okay that's a good run, very nice progress.

Okay how about abortion related to rape. Can you say that aborting the child from this situation should be consider as murder?, cause it is kind of correlational as the raped victim will experience different kinds of mental disorder as she can remember the past trauma from the rape just by looking the bump in his tummy, or just by knowing that a criminals seedlings are inside hers.

[BADecker]

1. I wonder whose topic it is?

3. Are you asking if we should drop #3? Just say it plain out. Or do you want to fill up the pages with continous countering?

4. Did you ever ask a zygote in its language if it has feelings, emotions, consciousness? However, it's obvious that even if you knew its language, you would have enough sensitivity to formulate the questions properly.

So you think that seeds are not alive, but simply are some form of inanimate object, right? But do you have proof? The point is being sure of what you are doing in abortion, so that you don't risk murdering a person.

5. You ask such silly questions. Don't you see that there is a difference between maliciously destroying somebody's limb through amputation, and saving a person's life through amputation? We are not talking about aborting to save somebody's life. Abortion for that has its place. We are talking about arbitrary abortion. We are talking about abortion in general.

1. Yeah, the one who said that abortion is natural selection, maybe dumb or what

3. hmmmmmmmm, well I proved my point, and you just go back in circles, so feel free to.

4. Researches proves that there is no response nor associate actions done as you poke or whisper in the "zyogte", ergo as far as the researches states, it is not living.

5. So we agree that abortion is not a murder, if it is medical related, right?, Okay that's a good run, very nice progress.

Okay how about abortion related to rape. Can you say that aborting the child from this situation should be consider as murder?, cause it is kind of correlational as the raped victim will experience different kinds of mental disorder as she can remember the past trauma from the rape just by looking the bump in his tummy, or just by knowing that a criminals seedlings are inside hers.

1. The only selection that there is comes from people choosing. It's something that all people have the ability to do naturally. Wen they use their natural selection to select abortion, abortion is done by natural selection. Wake up!

3. Well, thanks. It's nice of you to join me in our circular referencing.

4. When you get as silly as stating something like that, they only thing possible is that you are still in zygote form.

5. No, we don't agree on that. What we might agree on the idea that it is, possibly, the lesser of two evils in some cases... very few cases.

6. You are driving on a winding mountain road. You go around a curve, and there is a rock in the road that slid down the mountain. Because it was around the curve, you didn't see it on time to swerve or brake. Bang! You get a flat.

What do you do? You get out of the car, you take your hunting rifle with you, and you shoot the heck out of the rock, right? Once you have killed it really dead, you go over and give it a good kick, just for good measure, and you break your foot. So, you reload, and shoot it some more.

Stuff happens. Abortion from rape is still abortion, and the woman will have to live with the fact that she killed a baby, all her life... even though she may be comforted by the idea that she did some kind of justice... even though she may harden herself against the idea that she killed another person.

Aborting for any reason other than a serious threat against the life of the mother is murder... even when it is the lesser of two evils.

[BADecker]

That other report  - the OP - was just plain wrong. That is, let's hope it was wrong, and that abortions aren't increasing this fast.


Abortion Leading Cause of Death Worldwide in 2020 -- Killing 42.6 Million People, Study Finds

The stunning figure by the independent site, collected from governments and reputable organizations, shows that the 42+ million abortion deaths far outpaced the 1.8 million coronavirus deaths in 2020.

From LifeNews:

When contrasting the abortion numbers to other causes of death, including cancer, HIV/AIDS, traffic accidents and suicide, abortions far outnumbered every other cause.

By contrast, 8.7 million people died from cancer in 2020, 5 million from smoking, 13 million from disease, and 1.7 million died of HIV/AIDS. Deaths by malaria and alcohol are also recorded.

And when compared to the coronavirus, the number of people dying from abortions dwarfs the number of coronavirus deaths. Worldomters indicates that 1,830,979 people died from the coronavirus worldwide in 2020.

[franky1]

ok so 7.8bill people =3.9bll females
with the age range from 1-100 if you broke it down as 390m per 10year age bracket
you can discount off 6 age brackets of 0-10 and 50-100. meaning
=1.56bill woman of 'conception possible age'

so badecker wants to think 2% of woman able to conceive are murderers each year. meaning
2% kill in year 1 (37m of 1.56b)
2% kill in year 2(another 37m of 1.56b)
2% kill in year 3(another 37m of 1.56b)
and so on for 35 years of 15-50
well add that up for all the woman from 15-50. would mean that 70% of all conceptionable age women have killed atleast once in 35 years,

70%.. um. no just no. us figures are more like 24%. uk figures are under 20%. so if the 70% math based on badecker sources was correct some other countries must be in the high 90% just to balance out to 70%
..in my opinion the 37m(70%) is just too high a number to even be accurate
..
i must bring back the argument that badecker does not understand:
the definition of murder.
what gestational state 'life' is determined as.
the legal rights a woman has over her body.
.. also to note
also a high majority of 'abortions' occured in the first 12 weeks. involving swallowing a pill and having a heavy period to clearout. so not exactly a story that sounds like murder

[BADecker]

^^^ Just remember that f-1 uses the determination idea rather than what is really happening. That's part of the reason why so many of his posts end up in circular referencing. He's caught like a tiger chasing its tail.

[Natsuu]

1. Yeah, the one who said that abortion is natural selection, maybe dumb or what

3. hmmmmmmmm, well I proved my point, and you just go back in circles, so feel free to.

4. Researches proves that there is no response nor associate actions done as you poke or whisper in the "zyogte", ergo as far as the researches states, it is not living.

5. So we agree that abortion is not a murder, if it is medical related, right?, Okay that's a good run, very nice progress.

Okay how about abortion related to rape. Can you say that aborting the child from this situation should be consider as murder?, cause it is kind of correlational as the raped victim will experience different kinds of mental disorder as she can remember the past trauma from the rape just by looking the bump in his tummy, or just by knowing that a criminals seedlings are inside hers.

1. The only selection that there is comes from people choosing. It's something that all people have the ability to do naturally. Wen they use their natural selection to select abortion, abortion is done by natural selection. Wake up!

3. Well, thanks. It's nice of you to join me in our circular referencing.

4. When you get as silly as stating something like that, they only thing possible is that you are still in zygote form.

5. No, we don't agree on that. What we might agree on the idea that it is, possibly, the lesser of two evils in some cases... very few cases.

6. You are driving on a winding mountain road. You go around a curve, and there is a rock in the road that slid down the mountain. Because it was around the curve, you didn't see it on time to swerve or brake. Bang! You get a flat.

What do you do? You get out of the car, you take your hunting rifle with you, and you shoot the heck out of the rock, right? Once you have killed it really dead, you go over and give it a good kick, just for good measure, and you break your foot. So, you reload, and shoot it some more.

Stuff happens. Abortion from rape is still abortion, and the woman will have to live with the fact that she killed a baby, all her life... even though she may be comforted by the idea that she did some kind of justice... even though she may harden herself against the idea that she killed another person.

Aborting for any reason other than a serious threat against the life of the mother is murder... even when it is the lesser of two evils.

1. "Natural Selection is the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring." - Oxford Dictionary,

Oh nooo, I think I should wake up 

And by your own definition, really? woman have the ability to naturally abort a child? WOW

3. Welcome

4. Point proven, given that is your response 

5. But you said "Don't you see that there is a difference between maliciously destroying somebody's limb through amputation, and saving a person's life through amputation?" right? when were discussing about if Amputations are murder or not.

You are proving another point while disproving your previous one. 

6. Wait, so you are saying that she is required to take the responsibility of raising a child she was forced to carry, and live life from it?

In that case, you are depriving that woman from her rights and liberty as she didn't consent in the process in the first place, and being pregnant limits a persons actions as she is "responsible" to be healthy for the safety of the unborn child. Ergo, you are committing a criminal act.

[BADecker]

1. Yeah, the one who said that abortion is natural selection, maybe dumb or what

3. hmmmmmmmm, well I proved my point, and you just go back in circles, so feel free to.

4. Researches proves that there is no response nor associate actions done as you poke or whisper in the "zyogte", ergo as far as the researches states, it is not living.

5. So we agree that abortion is not a murder, if it is medical related, right?, Okay that's a good run, very nice progress.

Okay how about abortion related to rape. Can you say that aborting the child from this situation should be consider as murder?, cause it is kind of correlational as the raped victim will experience different kinds of mental disorder as she can remember the past trauma from the rape just by looking the bump in his tummy, or just by knowing that a criminals seedlings are inside hers.

1. The only selection that there is comes from people choosing. It's something that all people have the ability to do naturally. Wen they use their natural selection to select abortion, abortion is done by natural selection. Wake up!

3. Well, thanks. It's nice of you to join me in our circular referencing.

4. When you get as silly as stating something like that, they only thing possible is that you are still in zygote form.

5. No, we don't agree on that. What we might agree on the idea that it is, possibly, the lesser of two evils in some cases... very few cases.

6. You are driving on a winding mountain road. You go around a curve, and there is a rock in the road that slid down the mountain. Because it was around the curve, you didn't see it on time to swerve or brake. Bang! You get a flat.

What do you do? You get out of the car, you take your hunting rifle with you, and you shoot the heck out of the rock, right? Once you have killed it really dead, you go over and give it a good kick, just for good measure, and you break your foot. So, you reload, and shoot it some more.

Stuff happens. Abortion from rape is still abortion, and the woman will have to live with the fact that she killed a baby, all her life... even though she may be comforted by the idea that she did some kind of justice... even though she may harden herself against the idea that she killed another person.

Aborting for any reason other than a serious threat against the life of the mother is murder... even when it is the lesser of two evils.

1. "Natural Selection is the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring." - Oxford Dictionary,

Oh nooo, I think I should wake up 

And by your own definition, really? woman have the ability to naturally abort a child? WOW

3. Welcome

4. Point proven, given that is your response 

5. But you said "Don't you see that there is a difference between maliciously destroying somebody's limb through amputation, and saving a person's life through amputation?" right? when were discussing about if Amputations are murder or not.

You are proving another point while disproving your previous one. 

6. Wait, so you are saying that she is required to take the responsibility of raising a child she was forced to carry, and live life from it?

In that case, you are depriving that woman from her rights and liberty as she didn't consent in the process in the first place, and being pregnant limits a persons actions as she is "responsible" to be healthy for the safety of the unborn child. Ergo, you are committing a criminal act.

1. Oxford doesn't go deep enough. Natural selection is the selecting that people make by cause and effect... based on how they feel because of all kinds of things... like the food they ate last night.

The ability to abort a child doesn't make it right. The promise of life to a person through conception is the breaking of a promise if there is abortion.

4. No use responding/replying to a zygote. English isn't understood by a zygote.

5. You are playing games replying like that. But, it is amazing that you can even reply, being in zygote form. Super-zygote, right?

6. Situations in life deprive people of all kinds of freedoms. A woman who aborts her own child, has deprived that child of the freedom to live, a freedom that she is accepting for herself. Try jumping to the moon, sometime. People are prohibited from doing all kinds of things in life. Regarding the person she is carrying, if there is no real danger to her life, the mother should bear the child, and give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it... not murder it.

[Natsuu]

1. "Natural Selection is the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring." - Oxford Dictionary,

Oh nooo, I think I should wake up  

And by your own definition, really? woman have the ability to naturally abort a child? WOW

3. Welcome

4. Point proven, given that is your response  

5. But you said "Don't you see that there is a difference between maliciously destroying somebody's limb through amputation, and saving a person's life through amputation?" right? when were discussing about if Amputations are murder or not.

You are proving another point while disproving your previous one.  

6. Wait, so you are saying that she is required to take the responsibility of raising a child she was forced to carry, and live life from it?

In that case, you are depriving that woman from her rights and liberty as she didn't consent in the process in the first place, and being pregnant limits a persons actions as she is "responsible" to be healthy for the safety of the unborn child. Ergo, you are committing a criminal act.

1. Oxford doesn't go deep enough. Natural selection is the selecting that people make by cause and effect... based on how they feel because of all kinds of things... like the food they ate last night.

The ability to abort a child doesn't make it right. The promise of life to a person through conception is the breaking of a promise if there is abortion.

4. No use responding/replying to a zygote. English isn't understood by a zygote.

5. You are playing games replying like that. But, it is amazing that you can even reply, being in zygote form. Super-zygote, right?

6. Situations in life deprive people of all kinds of freedoms. A woman who aborts her own child, has deprived that child of the freedom to live, a freedom that she is accepting for herself. Try jumping to the moon, sometime. People are prohibited from doing all kinds of things in life. Regarding the person she is carrying, if there is no real danger to her life, the mother should bear the child, and give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it... not murder it.

1. "Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change." - nat.geographic
"Natural selection is one of the central mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the process responsible for the evolution of adaptive features." - https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1

Oh yeah, I forgot, that you made your own very definition of words, my bad. I've forgotten that even the definition of words are false for you.

4. Right, point proven indeed

5. Ohhhh, another point proven, can't even manage to prove your point aren't you? silly

6. ohhhh, ergo, we should diminish all kinds of law, as it results to contrast within each other. Nice idea einstein.

[BADecker]

1. "Natural Selection is the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring." - Oxford Dictionary,

Oh nooo, I think I should wake up  

And by your own definition, really? woman have the ability to naturally abort a child? WOW

3. Welcome

4. Point proven, given that is your response  

5. But you said "Don't you see that there is a difference between maliciously destroying somebody's limb through amputation, and saving a person's life through amputation?" right? when were discussing about if Amputations are murder or not.

You are proving another point while disproving your previous one.  

6. Wait, so you are saying that she is required to take the responsibility of raising a child she was forced to carry, and live life from it?

In that case, you are depriving that woman from her rights and liberty as she didn't consent in the process in the first place, and being pregnant limits a persons actions as she is "responsible" to be healthy for the safety of the unborn child. Ergo, you are committing a criminal act.

1. Oxford doesn't go deep enough. Natural selection is the selecting that people make by cause and effect... based on how they feel because of all kinds of things... like the food they ate last night.

The ability to abort a child doesn't make it right. The promise of life to a person through conception is the breaking of a promise if there is abortion.

4. No use responding/replying to a zygote. English isn't understood by a zygote.

5. You are playing games replying like that. But, it is amazing that you can even reply, being in zygote form. Super-zygote, right?

6. Situations in life deprive people of all kinds of freedoms. A woman who aborts her own child, has deprived that child of the freedom to live, a freedom that she is accepting for herself. Try jumping to the moon, sometime. People are prohibited from doing all kinds of things in life. Regarding the person she is carrying, if there is no real danger to her life, the mother should bear the child, and give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it... not murder it.

1. "Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change." - nat.geographic
"Natural selection is one of the central mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the process responsible for the evolution of adaptive features." - https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1

Oh yeah, I forgot, that you made your own very definition of words, my bad. I've forgotten that even the definition of words are false for you.

4. Right, point proven indeed

5. Ohhhh, another point proven, can't even manage to prove your point aren't you? silly

6. ohhhh, ergo, we should diminish all kinds of law, as it results to contrast within each other. Nice idea einstein.

1. So somebody might have said. But where can anybody find selection in cause and effect? Oh, that's right. In the Great First Cause. Everybody defines words in any way they want. Before evolution theory, the idea of natural selection was barely heard as a definition as evolutionists use it nowadays.

6. Not sure what that means. Laws are made based on the way they are stated. The results of making bad laws often cause harm to many people. But if you mean laws of nature, the laws of nature are to save human life, not murder it.