Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

abortion

atheismo
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 5:04:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Personally I am pro-choice. I dont need to believe that all women have to have an abortion, i just believe they should have the option available if they don't want to have a kid that basically sucks their blood away from them for 9 months (like a termite or another parasite).

why should we not allow abortion? I find it funny that almost all women are for abortion, what does that say about the pain and toruble that go into carrying a 'baby'

And it's not even a baby until months in, before that its just cells, the cells don't even become a human 'baby' until a few months in. So its probably just republicans arguing from the bible again... the bible says birds are bats, what does that say about its biology, much less about embryo biology
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 6:14:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 5:04:32 AM, atheismo wrote:
Personally I am pro-choice. I dont need to believe that all women have to have an abortion, i just believe they should have the option available if they don't want to have a kid that basically sucks their blood away from them for 9 months (like a termite or another parasite).

why should we not allow abortion? I find it funny that almost all women are for abortion, what does that say about the pain and toruble that go into carrying a 'baby'

And it's not even a baby until months in, before that its just cells, the cells don't even become a human 'baby' until a few months in. So its probably just republicans arguing from the bible again... the bible says birds are bats, what does that say about its biology, much less about embryo biology

Funny I was actually about to post a similar topic on planned parenthood. Abortion is a cruel and violent act and how it is performed is quite barbaric. You may want to read Abby Johnson's story at http://www.abbyjohnson.org...

How is Abortion Performed?

There are several different methods to performing an abortion.

Suction Abortion: Also called vacuum aspiration, this is the most common abortion technique in use today. In this procedure a suction tube is inserted through the dilated cervix into the womb. A powerful vacuum tears the placenta from the uterus and dismembers the body of the developing child, sucking the pieces into an attached jar. There is a risk that the uterus can be punctured during the procedure. Also, the abortionist must take care that all the body parts are removed from the womb, as infection and hemorrhage can occur if fetal or placental tissue is left in the uterus.

DILATION AND CURETTAGE: In a D&C abortion, usually performed between seven and twelve weeks of pregnancy, the doctor inserts a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife, into the womb through the dilated cervix. As the curette scrapes the wall of the uterus, the baby is cut into pieces. Bleeding can be considerable. As with a suction abortion, there is a risk of infection or hemorrhage, so the abortionist must reassemble the body parts to make sure the uterus is empty.

DILATION AND EVACUATION (D&E): This method is similar to a D&C, except that forceps must be used to grasp the baby's body because of the child's advanced development. The baby is dismembered as the abortionist twists and tears the parts of the body and slices the placenta away from the uterus. Bleeding is profuse. Although relatively safe for the mother, the procedure is devastating to the hospital staff and many doctors refuse to do advanced D&E abortions.

SALT POISONING (SALINE INJECTION): "Salting out" is the second most common method of inducing abortion and is usually used after sixteen weeks. The doctor inserts a long needle through the mother's abdomen and injects a saline solution into the sac of amniotic fluid surrounding the baby. The baby is poisoned by swallowing the salt and his skin is completely burned away. It takes about an hour to kill the baby. After the child dies, the mother goes into labor and expels the dead baby. Saline injections have been outlawed in some countries because of the risks to the mother, which can include lung and kidney damage if the salt finds its way into her bloodstream. In spite of the horrible burning effect, some babies have survived "salting out" and been born alive.

HYSTEROTOMY: Similar to the Cesarean section, the hysterotomy abortion is a surgical procedure whereby the baby is removed from the mother's womb and allowed to die by neglect or killed by a direct act. This method offers the highest risk to the mother and produces the most number of live births. Hysterotomy is used only for late term pregnancies, and is sometimes used if the salt poisoning or prostaglandin abortion has failed.

PROSTAGLANDIN ABORTION: Prostaglandin is a chemical hormone which induces violent labor and premature birth when injected into the amniotic sac. Since prostaglandin results in an unusually high percentage of live births, salt, urea or another toxin is often injected first. The risk of live birth from a prostaglandin abortion is so great that its use is recommended only in hospitals with neonatal intensive care units. The risk to the mother is also greater with the use of prostaglandin; complications can include cardiac arrest.

http://www.prochoice.com...

Why should it be Illegal?

As a libertarian, here are my views on why it should be illegal:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

Any justification?

I do believe there are justifications for abortion - when the mother's life is at risk or in cases or rape or incest.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
atheismo
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 6:33:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
hello doubtingfave that is a very interesting point, I will read it sometime later, but at least you are not arguing from the biblical verse. I just dont see how a bunch of cells at such a young age could be considerd a human in the saame way that we are humans. we can think etc.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 6:44:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@doubting Dave

Technically, a fetus is a parasite, and since it is weakening the mother, it is violating social contract by that alone. Therefore abortion should remain legal.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 6:48:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 6:14:14 AM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 3/25/2013 5:04:32 AM, atheismo wrote:
Personally I am pro-choice. I dont need to believe that all women have to have an abortion, i just believe they should have the option available if they don't want to have a kid that basically sucks their blood away from them for 9 months (like a termite or another parasite).

why should we not allow abortion? I find it funny that almost all women are for abortion, what does that say about the pain and toruble that go into carrying a 'baby'

And it's not even a baby until months in, before that its just cells, the cells don't even become a human 'baby' until a few months in. So its probably just republicans arguing from the bible again... the bible says birds are bats, what does that say about its biology, much less about embryo biology

Funny I was actually about to post a similar topic on planned parenthood. Abortion is a cruel and violent act and how it is performed is quite barbaric. You may want to read Abby Johnson's story at http://www.abbyjohnson.org...

How is Abortion Performed?

There are several different methods to performing an abortion.

Suction Abortion: Also called vacuum aspiration, this is the most common abortion technique in use today. In this procedure a suction tube is inserted through the dilated cervix into the womb. A powerful vacuum tears the placenta from the uterus and dismembers the body of the developing child, sucking the pieces into an attached jar. There is a risk that the uterus can be punctured during the procedure. Also, the abortionist must take care that all the body parts are removed from the womb, as infection and hemorrhage can occur if fetal or placental tissue is left in the uterus.

DILATION AND CURETTAGE: In a D&C abortion, usually performed between seven and twelve weeks of pregnancy, the doctor inserts a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife, into the womb through the dilated cervix. As the curette scrapes the wall of the uterus, the baby is cut into pieces. Bleeding can be considerable. As with a suction abortion, there is a risk of infection or hemorrhage, so the abortionist must reassemble the body parts to make sure the uterus is empty.

DILATION AND EVACUATION (D&E): This method is similar to a D&C, except that forceps must be used to grasp the baby's body because of the child's advanced development. The baby is dismembered as the abortionist twists and tears the parts of the body and slices the placenta away from the uterus. Bleeding is profuse. Although relatively safe for the mother, the procedure is devastating to the hospital staff and many doctors refuse to do advanced D&E abortions.


SALT POISONING (SALINE INJECTION): "Salting out" is the second most common method of inducing abortion and is usually used after sixteen weeks. The doctor inserts a long needle through the mother's abdomen and injects a saline solution into the sac of amniotic fluid surrounding the baby. The baby is poisoned by swallowing the salt and his skin is completely burned away. It takes about an hour to kill the baby. After the child dies, the mother goes into labor and expels the dead baby. Saline injections have been outlawed in some countries because of the risks to the mother, which can include lung and kidney damage if the salt finds its way into her bloodstream. In spite of the horrible burning effect, some babies have survived "salting out" and been born alive.

HYSTEROTOMY: Similar to the Cesarean section, the hysterotomy abortion is a surgical procedure whereby the baby is removed from the mother's womb and allowed to die by neglect or killed by a direct act. This method offers the highest risk to the mother and produces the most number of live births. Hysterotomy is used only for late term pregnancies, and is sometimes used if the salt poisoning or prostaglandin abortion has failed.


PROSTAGLANDIN ABORTION: Prostaglandin is a chemical hormone which induces violent labor and premature birth when injected into the amniotic sac. Since prostaglandin results in an unusually high percentage of live births, salt, urea or another toxin is often injected first. The risk of live birth from a prostaglandin abortion is so great that its use is recommended only in hospitals with neonatal intensive care units. The risk to the mother is also greater with the use of prostaglandin; complications can include cardiac arrest.

http://www.prochoice.com...

Why should it be Illegal?

As a libertarian, here are my views on why it should be illegal:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

Humans are not special; we don't have rights because we are humans. We obtain rights because we have the capability of rationally conferring value on other things and thus have dignity. Sure, the fetus is a human, but it is not a person if it is not rational and is not a source of value.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

Abortion is no more homicide than denying a homeless person food is homicide. Need does not impose moral obligations to provide.
3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

1. It is not a person because it is not rational. Do you have a right to hunt deer? Deer are innocent and are actually more rational than fetuses, but I don't see you protesting hunting. Rights are conferred on the basis of rationality and not on the basis of being a human.

2. You do have a right to deny resources to others. That is what abortion is.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body.
No, it does not. You do not have the right to use the property of another for any reason.
Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

Yes, they absolutely do have the right to evict their children from the crib because need does not impose moral obligations to provide. If they wish to do this on public lands, however, the public has a right to specify how it must be done (i.e. dropping them off in a fire station, placing them in foster care, or putting them up for adoption).
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

The fetus is not a person. You are falsely equating humans with persons.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

So, should we pass laws requiring you to share your homes with innocent homeless people? No? Oh, that's right-laws are not supposed to violate rights (for the moment, I'll set aside the fact that the existence of law is a violation of rights).

Any justification?

I do believe there are justifications for abortion - when the mother's life is at risk or in cases or rape or incest.

Why does the fetus' right to life evaporate at this point? If it has a positive right to life, shouldn't it have it regardless of its form of conception? The fact that you are conceding this proves that you don't think that the right to life is important for the fetus. This is just about controlling women, and nothing else.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 6:51:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 6:44:20 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
@doubting Dave

Technically, a fetus is a parasite, and since it is weakening the mother, it is violating social contract by that alone. Therefore abortion should remain legal.

This is actually true. Every child that a woman has causes a reduction in her life span, so fetuses are literally killing their mothers. (https://www.scientificamerican.com...) Of course, for people like Dave, women's lives don't matter because we're just tools to produce more men. A "libertarian" named LibertyCampbell actually said this to me, and he wasn't trolling.

Real libertarians are pro-choice.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 7:11:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What a bunch of garbage so far in this thread.

- Termites are not parasites
- Pregnancy is not parasitic either in technical terms or in practical terms
- Royal's citation has nothing to do with her argument (just click on the link :P)

The abortion argument is purely political. It has nothing to do with whether pregnancy resembles parasitism, and has nothing to do with whether abortions should be performed or not, since they will be performed whether you want them to or not. It only has to do with whether you believe that we should allow our government to police the womb.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 7:29:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 7:11:08 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:

- Royal's citation has nothing to do with her argument (just click on the link :P)

That's not true at all. The study I cited says that having children reduces lifespan and that having male children reduces a mother's lifespan more than having female children does. The title of the article is about the fact that having male children reduces the lifespan more, but the content contains my evidence.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 7:41:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 7:29:09 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/25/2013 7:11:08 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:


- Royal's citation has nothing to do with her argument (just click on the link :P)


That's not true at all. The study I cited says that having children reduces lifespan and that having male children reduces a mother's lifespan more than having female children does. The title of the article is about the fact that having male children reduces the lifespan more, but the content contains my evidence.

"By contrast, daughters actually lengthened their mother's lifespan"

-_-
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 7:54:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This was actually the topic that brought me to this site...
My first debate: http://www.debate.org...

At 3/25/2013 6:51:10 AM, real-idiot wrote:
Real libertarians are pro-choice.

I think late-term babies should be considered as having rights just as newborns are...

And, yes.. I think women's privacy rights, and right to having control over their body are important and legitimate, and also ought to be respected..

But when Rights of parties conflict, the appropriate response is to weigh them out against one another and to balance them..
I cannot see how completely ignoring the rights of one party is the right way to go.

Further, if (between the mother and child) anyone can be said to be at all responsible for the predicament that these two find themselves in it is Clearly (in Practically All scenarios) the Mother...

In the vast majority of cases the mother willingly practiced insufficiently 'protected' sex and then failed to check her pregnancy status, or at the least, failed to get an early abortion.
This Callous Disregard for potential consequences of her actions/lack of actions is the reason the babe is so dependent upon the womb of this Unwilling mother.

And, other than this, even in most cases where the woman's responsibility can be somewhat said to be less, it is almost always more than the babe's (which is Nil). For, most women know when they've had sexual intercourse (forcible or otherwise) and pregnancy tests and early abortions are fairly cheap (in the US at least.. and/or often subsidized in some manner)...
If the woman was at all empathetic to the suffering or death of a child she could have prevented the situation of an unwanted child developing in her womb.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 8:24:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 7:54:55 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If the woman was at all empathetic to the suffering or death of a child she could have prevented the situation of an unwanted child developing in her womb.

And, what is perhaps more important...

It was, in the vast majority of cases, her actions that created the situation in the first place... And she's aware of the potential consequences.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
BigSky
Posts: 141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 7:00:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 6:33:00 AM, atheismo wrote:
hello doubtingfave that is a very interesting point, I will read it sometime later, but at least you are not arguing from the biblical verse. I just dont see how a bunch of cells at such a young age could be considerd a human in the saame way that we are humans. we can think etc.

The bible doesn't talk about abortions because they wouldn't even think of something so horrible happening back then. I am against it because I believe it is murder.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 5:17:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 7:00:53 PM, BigSky wrote:
At 3/25/2013 6:33:00 AM, atheismo wrote:
hello doubtingfave that is a very interesting point, I will read it sometime later, but at least you are not arguing from the biblical verse. I just dont see how a bunch of cells at such a young age could be considerd a human in the saame way that we are humans. we can think etc.

The bible doesn't talk about abortions because they wouldn't even think of something so horrible happening back then. I am against it because I believe it is murder.

Read about the Trial of Bitter Waters. You'd be surprised about what the Bible actually permits if you read it.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 5:18:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 7:54:55 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
This was actually the topic that brought me to this site...
My first debate: http://www.debate.org...

At 3/25/2013 6:51:10 AM, real-idiot wrote:
Real libertarians are pro-choice.

I think late-term babies should be considered as having rights just as newborns are...

And, yes.. I think women's privacy rights, and right to having control over their body are important and legitimate, and also ought to be respected..

But when Rights of parties conflict, the appropriate response is to weigh them out against one another and to balance them..
I cannot see how completely ignoring the rights of one party is the right way to go.

Further, if (between the mother and child) anyone can be said to be at all responsible for the predicament that these two find themselves in it is Clearly (in Practically All scenarios) the Mother...

In the vast majority of cases the mother willingly practiced insufficiently 'protected' sex and then failed to check her pregnancy status, or at the least, failed to get an early abortion.
This Callous Disregard for potential consequences of her actions/lack of actions is the reason the babe is so dependent upon the womb of this Unwilling mother.

And, other than this, even in most cases where the woman's responsibility can be somewhat said to be less, it is almost always more than the babe's (which is Nil). For, most women know when they've had sexual intercourse (forcible or otherwise) and pregnancy tests and early abortions are fairly cheap (in the US at least.. and/or often subsidized in some manner)...
If the woman was at all empathetic to the suffering or death of a child she could have prevented the situation of an unwanted child developing in her womb.

So what? This doesn't mean she's obligated to do anything. I'll explain why after I ask you a question: Do you believe life is preferable to death?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 5:43:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 5:18:26 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I'll explain why after I ask you a question: Do you believe life is preferable to death?

As you could probably surmise from my continued existence...

Generally, and so far.. Yes.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 7:31:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 5:43:45 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/26/2013 5:18:26 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I'll explain why after I ask you a question: Do you believe life is preferable to death?

As you could probably surmise from my continued existence...

Generally, and so far.. Yes.

Ok, so since life is preferable to death, the mother owes the child nothing. You don't owe anything to people who are better off as a result of your actions. If a business hired a homeless person who gets hit by a car that would not have hit him had he not been hired (suppose he would never have crossed that street at the particular time he did), the owner is under no obligation to pay the medical bills for the homeless person because he was better off with the job than he was when he did not have it.

If you think death is preferable to life, you should have no objection to abortion.

It's a double bind.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 7:39:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 7:31:15 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/26/2013 5:43:45 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/26/2013 5:18:26 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I'll explain why after I ask you a question: Do you believe life is preferable to death?

As you could probably surmise from my continued existence...

Generally, and so far.. Yes.

Note the qualifiers:
Generally, and so far...

being brought into existence to experience being starved, cut to ribbons, poisoned.. or however else they do it is Not preferable to not developing at all.

Beyond that though, I just don't like the idea of baby-killing... and am willing to act, or vote for action, to try to prevent it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 7:50:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 5:04:32 AM, atheismo wrote:
Personally I am pro-choice. I dont need to believe that all women have to have an abortion, i just believe they should have the option available if they don't want to have a kid that basically sucks their blood away from them for 9 months (like a termite or another parasite).

why should we not allow abortion? I find it funny that almost all women are for abortion, what does that say about the pain and toruble that go into carrying a 'baby'

And it's not even a baby until months in, before that its just cells, the cells don't even become a human 'baby' until a few months in. So its probably just republicans arguing from the bible again... the bible says birds are bats, what does that say about its biology, much less about embryo biology

I very seriously doubt that this is an issue I will ever have to confront, so until then, live and let die.
Tsar of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 7:58:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 7:39:54 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Beyond that though, I just don't like the idea of baby-killing... and am willing to act, or vote for action, to try to prevent it.

What can I say?

I'm a touch sentimental about babies that can hear, feel, and think...

If there was a 7 month old baby in an incubator and someone went to go poison it... I'd think it best to stop them.

If there's a 7 month old baby in a mother's womb, and someone went to go poison it at the mother's behest... I'd initially Still want to stop them..

I grant, it's a more complicated situation... And we should ask if the mother deserves to have to bear this burden... If she's responsible for the situation's being as it is...

In those cases where she is (which I would think are the majority) then I would still want to stop the killing of the child.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."