Pro-life Atheists

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Beam
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  02-04-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2009 17:02
 
Nulono - 12 January 2009 09:33 PM

You are clearly not very rational or egalitarian. If I was a pedophile, and was arguing abortion from a purely pedophilic stance, I’d support abortion, as to allow free love. Why don’t you oppose abortion to give you more potential sexual partners. The children that you claim I am attracted to would grow into adults you would be attracted too.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to argue your position. In most democracies, your opinion that the rights of a fetus trump the rights of a sentient woman will likely be opposed by the majority of voters. I will be amongst the voters supporting a woman’s right to control her own body.

A pregnant woman is not a slaveholder. Some things simply are relative. I’ll make a deal with you. I will not force you to get an abortion. I ask you, in turn, to not force your ‘morality’ on a pregnant woman. Arguments about other subjects (i.e. rape and murder) are different arguments with different legal backgrounds and must be debated and judged on their own merits and circumstances.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 January 2009 18:27
 
Nulono - 12 January 2009 01:46 PM
burt - 12 January 2009 12:46 PM
Nulono - 12 January 2009 10:27 AM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 08:42 PM

Ah, yes, but laws against rape (Keep your laws off my penis!) and murder do force an opinion on people. That does not make it rape good.

No, they do not force an opinion, they say that if you commit certain acts you will face legal consequences.  They say nothing at all about what opinion you can have.  You are confusing thought and action.  Even anti-hate laws don’t force an opinion on you, they only prohibit you from expressing opinions that promote hatred of certain identifiable groups.  Personally, I favor complete freedom of expression, the nut jobs generally come off showing just how idiotic they are, a far better prophalatic than trying to silence them.

My point exactly. Laws against abortion would not enforce my morality on you.

“Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.” ~MLK Jr.

That was not your point, you were trying to assert that people are trying to force an opinion on you.  Your statement here is disingenuous, laws against abortion would not force me to change my opinion, and since I’m not a woman they would not directly influence my behavior.  But they would provide legal sanctions (i.e., the force of law) against women seeking abortions, hence would be forcing your morality on them, regardless of their opinion in the matter.

Laws afainst rape provide legal sanctions (i.e., the force of law) against rapists, hence forcing your morality on them, regardless of their opinion in the matter.

This is not a legitimate comparison.  Rape constitutes one person forcing themselves sexually on another person.  In other words, they are taking something from that person without consent.  Abortion does no such thing and no rational argument can be made that it does.  It specifically is based on a woman’s free choice. 

Nulono - 12 January 2009 01:46 PM

They would force women who desired an abortion to either act illegally, or carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

They force men to either act illegally or not rape anyone.

They require that men not violate another person’s free will and provide sanctions if they do.  Again, the comparison is not valid.

Nulono - 12 January 2009 01:46 PM

Legalized rape would allow men to chose in matters relating to their own body and do not injure you, other than possibly offending your puritan sense of morality, but that’s your problem.

You haven’t a leg to stand on. 

Nulono - 12 January 2009 01:46 PM

In any case, the point is moot, abortion is not going to be made illegal so you can wail and gnash your teeth all you want.

The question is not moot. Slavery was outlawed after the Supreme Court upheld it. Aborttion will be too.

If you really are a feminist supporter, as you have claimed, why don’t you spend your efforts trying to get better sex education in the schools, and making abortions as infrequent as possible by spreading information about effective means of contraception?

Because abortion is the leading cause of death in America.

Your opinion, based on a false assumption.

Nulono - 12 January 2009 01:46 PM

[quote burt]In any case, the point is moot, abortion is not going to be made illegal so you can wail and gnash your teeth all you want.

 

The question is not moot. Slavery was outlawed after the Supreme Court upheld it. Aborttion will be too.

Don’t hold your breath. 

I will no longer respond to your posts on abortion, you are showing yourself as a johnny one note who can’t make a coherent case in support of his belief and so keeps changing the subject, not responding to legitimate points or questions, and generally behaving like an ideological fundamentalist idiot. 

Unless, of course, Salt Creek is right and you are currently serving time for raping a 15 year old girl.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 January 2009 18:31
 
teuchter - 12 January 2009 06:39 PM
Nulono - 12 January 2009 03:37 PM
GAD - 12 January 2009 02:33 PM

Prove it. Give me a moral absolute that isn’t subjective and therefore relative to your world view.

Murder is immoral.

While I agree with McC:

McCreason - 12 January 2009 06:02 PM

He also apparently has the time to carry on a 39 page thread about a ridiculous subject that has been answered many times by many different people.

What some people won’t do for attention.

it is worth noting that murder is very far from a “moral absolute.”  It is an entirely relative offense.

Murder is generally defined in this country as the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought, a definition that we borrowed from the English common law.

What makes a homidice murder?  In the first instance, that our laws have declared it unlawful.  So if a prison guard kills an inmate who has been sentenced to death, that homicide is not unlawful, and therefore is not murder.  Yet most civilized countries, such as Canada and Europe, abolished the death penalty long ago.  And some countries execute people for crimes which we would argue, under our 8th Amendment, are not appropriate crimes for imposition of the death penalty.  Thus, killing someone for blowing up the federal building in OK City is immoral in Europe, and moral here and in Afghanistan; killing a woman for adultary is immoral in Europe, immoral here and moral in Afghanistan.

No “moral absolute” when it comes to “murder.”

Indeed, there was a fascinating article in one of last year’s New Yorker’s by Jarad Diamond, discussing a person he knew in New Guinea, one of whose uncles was killed by a person from another clan so it became his obligation to avenge the killing by killing the person who had killed his uncle.  He had to plan a war, gain allies (who had their own axes to grind), make sure that everybody got paid off, and etc.  In the end it took a number of years to accomplish and involved 17 deaths.  All culturally sanctioned and considered part of a moral obligation.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  305
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
13 January 2009 07:14
 

Abortion forces the unborn child to die.

burt - 12 January 2009 11:31 PM
teuchter - 12 January 2009 06:39 PM
Nulono - 12 January 2009 03:37 PM
GAD - 12 January 2009 02:33 PM

Prove it. Give me a moral absolute that isn’t subjective and therefore relative to your world view.

Murder is immoral.

While I agree with McC:

McCreason - 12 January 2009 06:02 PM

He also apparently has the time to carry on a 39 page thread about a ridiculous subject that has been answered many times by many different people.

What some people won’t do for attention.

it is worth noting that murder is very far from a “moral absolute.”  It is an entirely relative offense.

Murder is generally defined in this country as the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought, a definition that we borrowed from the English common law.

What makes a homidice murder?  In the first instance, that our laws have declared it unlawful.  So if a prison guard kills an inmate who has been sentenced to death, that homicide is not unlawful, and therefore is not murder.  Yet most civilized countries, such as Canada and Europe, abolished the death penalty long ago.  And some countries execute people for crimes which we would argue, under our 8th Amendment, are not appropriate crimes for imposition of the death penalty.  Thus, killing someone for blowing up the federal building in OK City is immoral in Europe, and moral here and in Afghanistan; killing a woman for adultary is immoral in Europe, immoral here and moral in Afghanistan.

No “moral absolute” when it comes to “murder.”

Indeed, there was a fascinating article in one of last year’s New Yorker’s by Jarad Diamond, discussing a person he knew in New Guinea, one of whose uncles was killed by a person from another clan so it became his obligation to avenge the killing by killing the person who had killed his uncle.  He had to plan a war, gain allies (who had their own axes to grind), make sure that everybody got paid off, and etc.  In the end it took a number of years to accomplish and involved 17 deaths.  All culturally sanctioned and considered part of a moral obligation.

Cultures can be wrong. Throwing babies off cliffs, burning “witches”, and the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe were all once “culturally sanctioned”.

[ Edited: 23 January 2009 09:46 by Nulono]
 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 January 2009 08:12
 
 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  305
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
23 January 2009 09:43
 

Like I didn’t know that already.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 January 2009 09:54
 
Nulono - 23 January 2009 02:43 PM

Like I didn’t know that already.

Just enjoying the moment.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  305
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
23 January 2009 14:20
 

Enjoy it while you can. The abolitionists also had some setbacks.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Argo
Total Posts:  126
Joined  07-05-2008
 
 
 
11 February 2009 18:31
 
Nulono - 23 January 2009 07:20 PM

Enjoy it while you can. The abolitionists also had some setbacks.

You’re a fucking moron.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  305
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
12 February 2009 16:53
 

That well may be.

However, you have not addressed my post.

Can you say, “ad hominem”?

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  305
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
03 July 2009 14:33
 
LogicAndReason - 09 October 2008 04:40 PM

Deciding when a person is a “someone” is another.

Okay. So I hereby decide that you are not a “someone”. BOOM, headshot.

 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  363
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
07 July 2009 05:38
 
Nulono - 03 July 2009 06:33 PM
LogicAndReason - 09 October 2008 04:40 PM

Deciding when a person is a “someone” is another.

Okay. So I hereby decide that you are not a “someone”. BOOM, headshot.

There’s no way I’m going to waste time wading through 600 posts catching up on your thread if this is your idea of a good retort.

 
 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
07 July 2009 15:15
 
Nulono - 03 July 2009 06:33 PM

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Who gives a shit! What I want to know is why the avitar of a Hershey’s candy bar fucking an old shoe?

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
gsmonks
Total Posts:  126
Joined  12-05-2009
 
 
 
23 May 2012 01:32
 

I’m a non-believer. I side with a woman’s right to choose.

-

That said, when I put myself in a zygote’s or embryo’s shoes, I think, “Wait just a dirty, darned minute!”

-

The point being that life is chock-full of messy, angst-evoking paradoxes and dilemmas that are non-resolvable.

-

No kill I.

-

How cute! A talking fish! Gut ‘im and fry ‘im, boys!

 
 
Avatar
 
 
DarkStar
Total Posts:  6
Joined  07-08-2012
 
 
 
07 August 2012 16:02
 
gsmonks - 23 May 2012 01:32 AM

I’m a non-believer. I side with a woman’s right to choose.

-

That said, when I put myself in a zygote’s or embryo’s shoes, I think, “Wait just a dirty, darned minute!”

Way to dig up a conversation from 2009!  Why not, I’ll join in…  I’m just riffing off what you said a bit and addressing some of the things I saw in this thread earlier.


Of course, Zygote’s and Embryo’s don’t have shoes, or feet or a brain to think with (I know that you know that).  That’s why many people aren’t willing to give them the same rights as a fully formed human being and, in the process, turning every women who miscarries into a Murder Suspect.


And this is not merely speculative, this is reality, it is already happening.  (by the power of GoogleSkull you may find it trivially)


The entire concept is misogynistic, hateful, ignorant, and spiteful.  The social harm this policy has done and will continue to do in the future is immeasurable.


I can only hope that enough of those whom people who support these “policies” love and care for will fall afoul of this.  I want your MOTHER and your SISTER and your DAUGHTER to be jailed for life and given the death penalty because they failed to eat a sufficient quantity of eggs (allergic to eggs? Too bad, no excuse will be tolerated), or had a drink the day they became pregnant which may have contributed to their miscarriage.


And maybe then those who support this will see the error of their ways.  But by then, it will be too late.  Hundreds of generations of women will suffer, once again, burned as witches (metaphorically if not literally).


[if you will pardon my rhetorical approach above, I really do not wish harm on anyone but people do need to understand the consequences of their actions]

 


And to those that say life begins at conception… Life began here on Earth some 3.6 Billion years ago and every cell in your body is a direct descendant and product of that life - Period.


Cells do not REQUIRE two copies of the DNA to be ‘alive’.  Go look up ‘Ploidy’.  Nature has a GREAT variety of configurations that are viable at different stages of various organisms life-cycle.  For example, male bees, wasps, and ants are haploid and develop from unfertilized, haploid egg cells.  Q.E.D.  This is irrelevant to the question of ‘life’.  For billions of years parthenogenesis was the norm (and most likely haploid) and our gametes are a product of that lineage.  Diploid cells are the modern “freaks of nature”, not the other way around.


And to throw another spanner into the works, look up HeLa cells.  Yeah, that’s right—“Human Cells” can live and thrive as single-celled organisms, free at last.  Why wouldn’t each of those cells also be a “Person”?  Are laboratories around the world now guilty of Mass Murder of 100’s of Trillions of little human souls because they disinfected?


And that means that EVERY cell in your body has the same potential to be another human being.  So every cell you allow to die is another murder of a human Person.  The census people will be thrilled.