Personally, I think that it would be humane to abort a defective fetus. I mean, what if they were only physically disable. Then they would learn they likely couldn't pursue all their dreams. Then they would learn that you could have prevented that by either altering them as the post states or not letting them get conscious enough to suffer. I don't think they'd be all that happy with you.
On the other hand if they we mentally disabled, then instead of having them anyways, you could just abort and get a dog, maybe even a parrot.
Of course, all this is on the bases that the parents wanted to test to see the likely outcome of the child, but still didn't want to alter it.
For all who decided to stay with their partner, this would be a considerable problem if reincarnation was in play. Especially if a belief system in a past life required you to stay with a partner in the afterlife.
Thank you :)
Is this post about goldfish?
How about the Amirite that has drawing is 20% cooler than the Amirite without drawing?
Just in general.
But then again, we're talking about before they are stars and thing to make gravity.
I'm not sure exactly what he meant when he said vacuum, but I answered it like he was talking about everything was a vacuum. So, what are you suggesting by space being able to be warped?
Okay, first, If the laws of physics always existed, then how did matter get here? If the whole "everything of a universe" was a vacuum and laws of physics were in place, then does that mean matter could never begin to exist, meaning that every thing is a lie!?
Plus, I still don't believe something can exist about something that doesn't exist.
For the "before" time didn't exist thing, look at the reply I made a couple posts up, "I wasn't looking at time as an object, but as a concept. Therefor, before time existed in the sense that you described, a type of "time" was still at play." It's hard to explain but look at it like this new type of time is called "tTime". tTime can't be slowed, stopped, speed, or skipped. It also always exists, because it is a concept. And so tTime was the time I was referring to in my "before".
I know, thinking about how things work when we can't experiment with them is confusing...
No no no, I'm not saying that energy can't be creating/destroyed (at least not anymore). I'm saying that it had to have a start, and that start was when energy was first created. How can there be a rule for something that doesn't exist?
Of course I can say it was a one time deal... There's other theories that talk about "One time deals". Besides, who knows, maybe laws of physics one day could cease to exist from some unknown factor. At that point this whole thing could start again.
Wait, and what exactly does my theory disprove?
Isn't that what a lot of theories do, disprove other theories. Also, I'm not saying my theory is proven fact, but what if it is right? Then wouldn't it be disproving things that are false? (something I think is good)
I wasn't looking at time as an object, but as a concept. Therefor, before time existed in the sense that you described, a type of "time" was still at play.
For all we know, that rule still does. What I meant was that everything came from nothing, including laws of physics. Therefore, the laws of physics suppress "something coming from nothing" w/ the law of conservation of matter and energy. My theory only works if the laws of physics started to exist when they had something to exist about.