SCOTUS Tells Anti-Abortion Nuts To Go Fuck Themselves

[RoadRunner79]

No, I do t think that at all... remember how we talked about not trying to speak for me.

Edit to add:  One might think that using rape in such a rhetorical way, and in comparing pregnancy to being raped, that it is you who minimize and don’t respect the issue!

You have no business demanding what other people do with their own bodies. Neither does anyone else, especially men. So let me just comment on your signature just to point out how you took that quote out of context (because that's what you apologists tend to do best with nonbelievers).

Here's what Vilenkin said a couple of paragraphs later:

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God… So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist. As evidenced by Jinasena’s remarks earlier in this chapter, religion is not immune to the paradoxes of Creation.

Nevertheless, multiple scientists disagree with him, and there's no consensus among cosmologists regarding whether the universe had a beginning or not. Vilenkin has his selection (and interpretation) of models to draw conclusions from, and so do other physicists and cosmologists. Which is why, ultimately, to end the debate, scientific evidence is required.

I disagree.   We tell women who are pregnant, not to smoke, not to drink, not to do crack!  We tell them this, because it is not just their body they are effecting.  (any more smoking will get you nasty looks any way).    However abortion is not about what the woman who is pregnant does with her body.   It is specifically an act of violence against another human (not the woman).

As to your side track comment on my signature quote.  I don't think that you did show it as out of context.  To do so, I think that you would need to show immediate context, where the quote was immediately negated, or to possibly show where the quote only applies within an immediate an narrow context. Your problem might be one, that I suspect happens a lot here (especially concerning theists and religion.  That you assume much more than what is said, and arguments that I'm not making.  You may be reading into things too much, and trying to find problems that are not there. 

 I did check the context of the quote when I applied it to my signature (though I don't recall it now).  I don't remember seeing any problem with context.  I also do not think that it was dependent on anything else around it, rather the idea is fully encapsulated within the quote, and was utilized by Vilenkin in this particular circumstance..  So, if you are done tilting at windmills, can we get back to the discussion of ideas?