Any atheists/agnostics here anti-abortion? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Any atheists/agnostics here anti-abortion?


Blast
10-24-2011, 02:07
Simple question. Requiring only a simple answer.
I have always been anti-abortion... even in my agnostic days. I was strongly agnostic when Roe v Wade went down. And I know quite a few atheists/agnostics that are also anti-abortion.
Religion has not been the reason I am anti-abortion.
So often I hear "If you're anti-abortion, you must be a Christian." :upeyes:
It's true that all real Christians as well as Jews, Muslims, Buddists, etc.
are anti-abortion, but not all those against abortion are of those religions.

This is not a "define life" issue.
But for the standard trolls, I consider life begins when genes combine and cells begin to grow.

So are there respecters of life among the RI heathen? :popcorn:

ksg0245
10-24-2011, 08:07
Simple question. Requiring only a simple answer.
I have always been anti-abortion... even in my agnostic days. I was strongly agnostic when Roe v Wade went down. And I know quite a few atheists/agnostics that are also anti-abortion.
Religion has not been the reason I am anti-abortion.
So often I hear "If you're anti-abortion, you must be a Christian." :upeyes:
It's true that all real Christians as well as Jews, Muslims, Buddists, etc.
are anti-abortion, but not all those against abortion are of those religions.

This is not a "define life" issue.
But for the standard trolls, I consider life begins when genes combine and cells begin to grow.

So are there respecters of life among the RI heathen? :popcorn:

I'm not anti-abortion in the sense that I think it should be illegal, and I object far less to early term abortion as opposed to late, but my preference would be universally available and correctly used effective birth control to the point that abortions needn't be considered.

Woofie
10-24-2011, 08:25
I am generally not a fan, but there are situations where i feel it would be more wrong to give birth than to terminate the pregnancy.

eracer
10-24-2011, 09:13
Agnostic here.

It's not a simple question at all - abortion is a complex and difficult ethical problem.

There are questions of when life begins, with equally valid arguments on both sides of the debate. Questions about whether the health of the mother should factor into the decision to abort, and at what point in the gestation of the offspring such a decision should (or even can) be made. Questions about whether a woman has the right to make a unilateral decision to abort.

Being an atheist or an agnostic surely does color one's opinion on these points, just as being a fundamentalist colors them.

My personal opinion is that education and access to birth control at puberty would obviate the need for many pregnancies, unwanted children, and abortions - even as children grow into adulthood. I'm NOT advocating that children be sexual. Parental education - for which we need educated parents - can teach children that there is much more to sex than physical pleasure.

But it's time we stop denying the power of the hormonal changes that children go through at puberty. Time to stop denying that they are sexually mature at that point. Time to explain to them that they do not have the emotional maturity to make good decisions regarding sex until several years after puberty, and as a corollary, abandon the failed notion that strict abstinence is the only answer.

As for 'adult' women - I believe in the sanctity of choice over the sanctity of an fetus, no matter what potential that fetus might have. Again, I would prefer that a woman, or preferably a couple, make a decision that allows that fetus to become a person, with all the rights and opportunities that a person has in this world.

But there are situations - many situations - in which an abortion is the best option.

FifthFreedom
10-24-2011, 09:21
I am not an atheist, but i do believe abortion should be an option in the case of rape or in the case that without it the life of the mother is in danger.

RC-RAMIE
10-24-2011, 11:25
Im a Atheists and I think nobody but the woman and her doctor should make that decision.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

muscogee
10-24-2011, 12:43
I wouldn't want one of my children to have an abortion, but I would support her if she did. As for your children, none of my business.

Trying to ban abortion is unrealistic. It's been tried and was less successful than banning pot. People with the means went out of the county and those lacking the means had clandestine abortions, often with disastrous results.

Japle
10-24-2011, 15:45
I'm an Atheist. Not only am I pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion.

We've got too many people on this planet already.

SCmasterblaster
10-24-2011, 19:51
I'm an Atheist. Not only am I pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion.

We've got too many people on this planet already.

Let me guess, you are pro-gun control, also. :shocked:

AlexHassin
10-24-2011, 20:19
Let me guess, you are pro-gun control, also. :shocked:
where is there any corrolary between the two?

SCmasterblaster
10-24-2011, 20:21
where is there any corrolary between the two?

I am just thinking that he is just another GT liberal. :upeyes:

427
10-24-2011, 21:58
As a former fetus, I'm against abortion.

I'm not, in any way, a religious person.

Here's my story;

I was born when just before Roe v Wade was decided. Had abortion been legal at the time I might not exist. I didn't have a choice. My birth mother who was a college student, put me up for adoption.

She could've terminated the pregnancy, and that would've been it, but my fate was decided by a phone call - I was claimed by two people who accepted me as their son.

I didn't have a choice in any of the decision process. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

The argument is that it's a woman's body, it's her choice, but what of me?

It's not a religious issue for me, it's an issue of survival.

I'm grateful to be alive and happy with my life.

Edit - It's not my place to judge others and impose my beliefs on them.

John Rambo
10-24-2011, 22:12
Simple question. Requiring only a simple answer.
I have always been anti-abortion... even in my agnostic days. I was strongly agnostic when Roe v Wade went down. And I know quite a few atheists/agnostics that are also anti-abortion.
Religion has not been the reason I am anti-abortion.
So often I hear "If you're anti-abortion, you must be a Christian." :upeyes:
It's true that all real Christians as well as Jews, Muslims, Buddists, etc.
are anti-abortion, but not all those against abortion are of those religions.

This is not a "define life" issue.
But for the standard trolls, I consider life begins when genes combine and cells begin to grow.

So are there respecters of life among the RI heathen? :popcorn:

Nah, if you want to poison your fetus with RU-486 and then have it vacuumed out, I say more power to you. Its not hurting me, and its none of my business.

Kingarthurhk
10-25-2011, 04:31
I am curious. We have seen all kinds of pro-abortion support. Now, some of it has been about rape and incest, and a lot of it has been about convenience. To expand on the concept of convenience, say, the woman decides to give birth to the child; but toward the end changes her mind. Late term abortion, not being a viable option, she gives birth in a secluded location and then dumps the baby in a trash can. Do the folks that are okay with with abortion, have a problem with this scenario, and if so, why?

muscogee
10-25-2011, 08:11
I am just thinking that he is just another GT liberal. :upeyes:

When it comes to abortion, most conservatives are really hypocritical. They want the government out of their lives but they want it neck deep in the lives of pregnant women. Most of the same people who are anti-abortion are even more vehemently opposed having their taxes raised to support unwanted children or that the birth parents simply can't afford a child.

Japle
10-25-2011, 08:19
Posted by SCmasterblaster:
Let me guess, you are pro-gun control, also.

I am just thinking that he is just another GT liberal.

Bad guess. And I doubt you were doing much thinking at all.

NRA Life Member since 1976, now an Endowment Member. I donate a minimum of $1,000 per year to the NRA/ILA.

Registered Republican since 1967. Never voted for a Democrat in my life.

But since I’m pro-choice, that makes me a “liberal”?

Japle
10-25-2011, 08:23
Posted by Kingarthurhk:
…the woman decides to give birth to the child; but toward the end changes her mind. Late term abortion, not being a viable option, she gives birth in a secluded location and then dumps the baby in a trash can. Do the folks that are okay with with abortion, have a problem with this scenario, and if so, why?

Once the child is born, it’s legally a person. At that point, the laws against murder apply.

muscogee
10-25-2011, 08:28
Bad guess. And I doubt you were doing much thinking at all.

NRA Life Member since 1976, now an Endowment Member. I donate a minimum of $1,000 per year to the NRA/ILA.

Registered Republican since 1967. Never voted for a Democrat in my life.

But since I’m pro-choice, that makes me a “liberal”?

You're a liberal because he disagrees with you but he can't defend his position. See that a lot on GT.

SCmasterblaster
10-25-2011, 08:47
Bad guess. And I doubt you were doing much thinking at all.

NRA Life Member since 1976, now an Endowment Member. I donate a minimum of $1,000 per year to the NRA/ILA.

Registered Republican since 1967. Never voted for a Democrat in my life.

But since I’m pro-choice, that makes me a “liberal”?

only slightly liberal - sorry.

Kingarthurhk
10-25-2011, 09:33
Once the child is born, it’s legally a person. At that point, the laws against murder apply.

Now are we discussing legality, or morality and philosophy? How is it any different to kill a viable life within a body, and to kill a viable life outside a body?

Japle
10-25-2011, 09:34
Posted by SCmasterblaster:
only slightly liberal - sorry.

No. Conservative.

I don't want government interference in our private lives and decisions.

If you want the government to be able to tell every pregnant woman what she can and can't do, then you're more than slightly liberal.

SCmasterblaster
10-25-2011, 11:13
No. Conservative.

I don't want government interference in our private lives and decisions.

If you want the government to be able to tell every pregnant woman what she can and can't do, then you're more than slightly liberal.

So telling a woman that she cannot kill her unborn child is liberal, or conservative?

muscogee
10-25-2011, 12:56
As others have mentioned before, there are no liberals in GT. The most liberal person here would be considered center right in the real world.

muscogee
10-25-2011, 12:59
So telling a woman that she cannot kill her unborn child is liberal, or conservative?

Is wanting more government intervention in people's lives liberal or conservative?

SCmasterblaster
10-25-2011, 13:23
Is wanting more government intervention in people's lives liberal or conservative?

More governement in people's lives is definitely liberal. :wavey:

Blast
10-25-2011, 13:25
Okay... honest answers. Disagree on a number of points, but this is not a debate thread.

I can understand abortion in the case of danger to the mother or if the child is determined to be severely deformed, and reluctantly in the case of rape/incest as long as it's done early.

I would not accept government subsidized abortion.

Those who get abortions for convenience have their conscience to haunt them.

muscogee
10-25-2011, 15:06
More governement in people's lives is definitely liberal. :wavey:

So prohibiting abortion is a liberal concept.

SCmasterblaster
10-25-2011, 16:19
So prohibiting abortion is a liberal concept.

Not if you ask a liberal that!

Paul7
10-28-2011, 17:41
I am not an atheist, but i do believe abortion should be an option in the case of rape or in the case that without it the life of the mother is in danger.

So you're against the other 98% of abortions?

Paul7
10-28-2011, 17:43
So prohibiting abortion is a liberal concept.

The pro-slavery crowd probably thought that about banning slavery, to cite another group of humans who were once considered less than human.

muscogee
10-28-2011, 19:19
The pro-slavery crowd probably thought that about banning slavery, to cite another group of humans who were once considered less than human.

You're changing the subject. If you want the government meddling in people's lives, they it's consistent to want it to ban abortion. It's hypocritical to want the government to ban abortion but not want the government to meddle in peoples' lives.

Kingarthurhk
10-28-2011, 19:34
You're changing the subject. If you want the government meddling in people's lives, they it's consistent to want it to ban abortion. It's hypocritical to want the government to ban abortion but not want the government to meddle in peoples' lives.

Ironic. Considering the governmnet does the following:

1. Does not charge the abortion doctor or the potential mother of muder for killing a viable human life that can live outside of its mother.

2. Does charge anyone stabbing the mother and killing the same viable human life with murder.

3. Does not charge the mother with murder for killing a viable human life until it is removed from the womb. The instant it is delivered and she exposes it to be killed by the elements, or then kills it herself is charged with murder.

4. At any time outside the womb the mother decides she tires of the viable human life and kills it, she is charged with murder.

So, yes, the government meddles in this sort of thing all the time.

Animal Mother
10-28-2011, 23:40
The pro-slavery crowd probably thought that about banning slavery, to cite another group of humans who were once considered less than human. And you say this, presumably, as a member of that pro-slavery crowd.

muscogee
10-29-2011, 07:41
Ironic. Considering the governmnet does the following:

1. Does not charge the abortion doctor or the potential mother of muder for killing a viable human life that can live outside of its mother.

2. Does charge anyone stabbing the mother and killing the same viable human life with murder.

3. Does not charge the mother with murder for killing a viable human life until it is removed from the womb. The instant it is delivered and she exposes it to be killed by the elements, or then kills it herself is charged with murder.

4. At any time outside the womb the mother decides she tires of the viable human life and kills it, she is charged with murder.

So, yes, the government meddles in this sort of thing all the time.

Another thing hypocritical about the conservative position on abortion is that they want to force a woman to have a child she can't support but don't want their taxes raised to defray some of the cost of raising that child. You're going to counter with, "Well she should have ...." That may be, but you can't change the past.

Kingarthurhk
10-29-2011, 08:20
Another thing hypocritical about the conservative position on abortion is that they want to force a woman to have a child she can't support but don't want their taxes raised to defray some of the cost of raising that child. You're going to counter with, "Well she should have ...." That may be, but you can't change the past.

Not a "viable" argument, as there are many couples out there clamoring to adopt.

muscogee
10-29-2011, 09:26
Not a "viable" argument, as there are many couples out there clamoring to adopt.

Only if the baby is white and has no problems.

Kingarthurhk
10-29-2011, 09:31
Only if the baby is white and has no problems.

According to whom?

TreyG-20
10-29-2011, 09:42
I am generally not a fan, but there are situations where i feel it would be more wrong to give birth than to terminate the pregnancy.
Im totally with this

Paul7
10-29-2011, 10:19
You're changing the subject. If you want the government meddling in people's lives, they it's consistent to want it to ban abortion. It's hypocritical to want the government to ban abortion but not want the government to meddle in peoples' lives.

Preventing murder isn't meddling in people's lives, although murderers would probably disagree with me.

Paul7
10-29-2011, 10:20
Only if the baby is white and has no problems.

Why do we see so many Americans going to China to adopt?

Paul7
10-29-2011, 10:20
And you say this, presumably, as a member of that pro-slavery crowd.

Actually, no, are you?

Animal Mother
10-29-2011, 11:27
Actually, no, are you?
Sorry, my mistake, I forgot you were no longer taking the position that morality doesn't change over time.

creaky
10-29-2011, 11:35
You have a stalker...:upeyes:

AM needs to lay off the Monster drinks.

Japle
10-29-2011, 11:39
Posted by Paul7:
Preventing murder isn't meddling in people's lives, although murderers would probably disagree with me.

"Murder" is a legal term. Abortion isn't "murder". It's legal.

Telling people they can't do something that's legal certainly meets my definition of "meddling in people's lives".

If you want to change the definition of "murder" to include abortion, you're going to have a very hard life. You might start with changing every member of the Supreme Court, because until SCOTUS changes its stance, you're just spinning your wheels.

creaky
10-29-2011, 11:40
Only if the baby is white and has no problems.

Do you have a problem with those two characteristics?

Do you have a cite for your statement?

Paul7
10-29-2011, 12:03
"Murder" is a legal term. Abortion isn't "murder". It's legal.

Telling people they can't do something that's legal certainly meets my definition of "meddling in people's lives".

If you want to change the definition of "murder" to include abortion, you're going to have a very hard life. You might start with changing every member of the Supreme Court, because until SCOTUS changes its stance, you're just spinning your wheels.

And everything Stalin, Hitler, and the Iranian mullahs did was legal too. So what? Is that what your definition of morality is? I know AM thinks morality is whatever a majority in a given locale thinks is just fine, I don't.

By this reasoning Plessy vs. Ferguson legalizing discrimination was OK.

Paul7
10-29-2011, 12:04
You have a stalker...:upeyes:

AM needs to lay off the Monster drinks.

Right you are, Creaky. Ranting, stalking trolls are best ignored, don't you think?

Animal Mother
10-29-2011, 12:19
And everything Stalin, Hitler, and the Iranian mullahs did was legal too. So what? Is that what your definition of morality is? I know AM thinks morality is whatever a majority in a given locale thinks is just fine, I don't. You have got to make up your mind.
By this reasoning Plessy vs. Ferguson legalizing discrimination was OK. You disagree with the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson? Why? On what basis?

creaky
10-29-2011, 12:37
"Murder" is a legal term. Abortion isn't "murder". It's legal.

Yes, legalized homicide. Paul7 beat me to it, but in Nazi Germany, it was "legal" to kill people depending on who their grandparents were. It was legal to kill Communists and Gypsies. Do you see any problem with that?

I suppose some convoluted rationalizations and quibbling about the definition of "legal" and "murder" serve to ease the guilt for the "pro-choice" crowd. Of course, there are many that no longer deal with guilt at all...


Telling people they can't do something that's legal certainly meets my definition of "meddling in people's lives".

Keeping people from killing other innocent people is the job of the government. It always has been.

If you want to change the definition of "murder" to include abortion, you're going to have a very hard life. You might start with changing every member of the Supreme Court, because until SCOTUS changes its stance, you're just spinning your wheels.

So if SCOTUS rules it, it's correct and righteous?

creaky
10-29-2011, 12:43
You have got to make up your mind.
You disagree with the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson? Why? On what basis?

Human morals change over time. What's so hard about that?

Japle
10-29-2011, 14:30
Posted by Paul7:
And everything Stalin, Hitler, and the Iranian mullahs did was legal too. So what? Is that what your definition of morality is?

Oh, good one! Bring Hitler and Stalin and a bunch of religious psychos into the conversation. Always a classy move!

Posted by creaky:
Keeping people from killing other innocent people is the job of the government.

I know you’d love it if fetuses came under the legal definition of “people”, but they don’t.

So if SCOTUS rules it, it's correct and righteous?

It’s the law of the land. Ranting about it won’t change that.

Until SCOTUS changes their ruling, all your blah-blah-blah about Hitler and mullahs and gypsies and murder is just noise.
As it stands, your cause is lost and your arguments only amount to spitting into the wind.

Kingarthurhk
10-29-2011, 14:45
I know you’d love it if fetuses came under the legal definition of “people”, but they don’t.


It’s the law of the land. Ranting about it won’t change that.

Until SCOTUS changes their ruling, all your blah-blah-blah about Hitler and mullahs and gypsies and murder is just noise.
As it stands, your cause is lost and your arguments only amount to spitting into the wind.

What if the law of the land decided that Athiests were not really "people" but a moral blight, and putting them to death at will, really wasn't "murder". Would you rant about that?

Just because it is a law, does it make it right?

Japle
10-29-2011, 15:34
Posted by Kingarthurk:
What if the law of the land decided that Athiests (sp) were not really "people" but a moral blight, and putting them to death at will, really wasn't "murder". Would you rant about that?

Sure, keep it realistic. What if pigs could fly? Would you be in favor of a migratory pig season?

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen pig?

Just because it is a law, does it make it right?

No. I think abortion on demand is right, though. Lucky for me.

SCmasterblaster
10-29-2011, 15:40
Sure, keep it realistic. What if pigs could fly? Would you be in favor of a migratory pig season?

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen pig?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::supergrin:

Kingarthurhk
10-29-2011, 15:42
Sure, keep it realistic. What if pigs could fly? Would you be in favor of a migratory pig season?

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen pig?



No. I think abortion on demand is right, though. Lucky for me.

It is very germaine, pun, perhaps intended. Throughout history cultures have victimized one group or another devaluing their lives and putting them to death.

It usually happens to a group that stigmatized, cannot defend itself, and is blamed for all sorts of social ills they have no part in.

These are the most vulnerable and innocent of society. Therefore, it is hardly a stretch for the above mentioned scenario to occur.

Would you be so blithe in 1936 Germany? But, I suppose hindsight is 20/20. You live in an age of holocaust on demand and are blithe about it.

Japle
10-29-2011, 15:49
You live in an age of holocaust on demand and are blithe about it.

And the Nazis appear once again. :upeyes:

Kingarthurhk
10-29-2011, 16:02
And the Nazis appear once again. :upeyes:

The analogy is apra pos. These are marginalized and slaughtered human beings. If no one will speak up for them, no one will. Then who is next?

In Germany, they first came for the gypsies, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a gypsy. Then they came for the Bolsheviks, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Bolshevik. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up then because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up." - Martin Niemoller, A Lutheran Pastor arrested by the Gestapo in 1937

RyanBDawg
10-29-2011, 16:34
Yea I'm an atheist and I think that there are better options than abortion, birth control, planning for a child, being a smarter person that doesn't behave like a low-life...

But in the case of a child that is going to be neglected, or abused, then I think abortion would be the right thing to do in that circumstance..

Religious nut-jobs don't agree, and it isn't their business.

Follow a simple rule, if its not your uterus, mind your own business...

Kingarthurhk
10-29-2011, 16:57
Yea I'm an atheist and I think that there are better options than abortion, birth control, planning for a child, being a smarter person that doesn't behave like a low-life...

But in the case of a child that is going to be neglected, or abused, then I think abortion would be the right thing to do in that circumstance..

Religious nut-jobs don't agree, and it isn't their business.

Follow a simple rule, if its not your uterus, mind your own business...

The same principal could be applied the italicized statement above. If it isn't your child, it isn't your business.

Killing a viable life for the sake of simple convenience should not be an option, unless, of course, you are good with parents being tired of being parents and murdering their children.

RyanBDawg
10-29-2011, 17:11
The same principal could be applied the italicized statement above. If it isn't your child, it isn't your business.

Killing a viable life for the sake of simple convenience should not be an option, unless, of course, you are good with parents being tired of being parents and murdering their children.

Then go to an abortion clinic and offer to adopt a child who would otherwise be aborted.

Kingarthurhk
10-29-2011, 17:21
Then go to an abortion clinic and offer to adopt a child who would otherwise be aborted.

I have two natural children of my own. We are already contemplating adoption, not because we can't have children. Obviously, we can. But, every child needs a home. We are trying to get our family arranged so we can do something similar to your description, so it can be a loving ordered home. However, I am not in the "market" for a baby. Everyone wants one.

I want, like Jesus, the unwanted. The sybling group, so they won't be divided up. Unlike what was mentioned above, color doesn't matter to me one way or the other. It is only society that worries about that.

PlayboyPenguin
10-29-2011, 18:06
I am an atheist, and I am pretty strongly anti-abortion. I feel there are too many parents that would love to have a child to not have them then put them up for adoption. Many parents would even pay all the birth expenses. Both of my sons are adopted (I did not want to ruin my figure).

Although I do agree that abortion is an option for instances of rape or incest or if the mother cannot safely carry without significant risk to her life. I still feel that decision needs to be made very early in the pregnancy though. Before any significant brain development of the fetus (which means after the first 4-6 weeks things are dicey). Once a recognizable brain is forming I think it is too late. I know the fetus cannot feel any pain until much later, but once they start being able to think i consider them living beings.

The only real obstacle for me is I have a hard time trying to enforce my own opinion on others. So I feel there should be some degree of choice involved. I do not think there should be a choice after the first trimester at all. At that point it is akin to murder in my eyes. And if the state tells me I cannot abort my 13 year old when he ticks me off, they should not be able to abort theirs either.

Japle
10-29-2011, 18:40
Posted by Kingarthurhk:
These are marginalized and slaughtered human beings. If no one will speak up for them, no one will. Then who is next?

You can keep saying things like that if you want, but (I may have mentioned this) it's moot. Your chances of changing the laws on abortion back to where they were 60 years ago are effectively zero.

Crying about it on an Internet forum does no good at all. Not that that'll stop you .......

creaky
10-29-2011, 19:41
Oh, good one! Bring Hitler and Stalin and a bunch of religious psychos into the conversation. Always a classy move!

They are valid examples. Godwin's Law be darned. The psychos you speak of are no worse than the psychos who chop up babies for a living, or the psychos who support them.



I know you’d love it if fetuses came under the legal definition of “people”, but they don’t. I know you love legal definitions. They cover for the degenerate mind.



It’s the law of the land.And the law is wrong.


Ranting about it won’t change that. Nobody ranting here but you, hamslice.

Until SCOTUS changes their ruling, all your blah-blah-blah about Hitler and mullahs and gypsies and murder is just noise.

If by noise, you mean arguments you can't overcome other than by repeating "it's the law", then yes, I suppose it is. The law is wrong and you are wrong.

As it stands, your cause is lost and your arguments only amount to spitting into the wind.

Not by a long shot. Stay tuned.

creaky
10-29-2011, 20:24
Sure, keep it realistic. What if pigs could fly? Would you be in favor of a migratory pig season?

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen pig?

Lets talk about realistic. Less than 70 years ago, millions were being put to death, "legally", because of who they were born to. It's all comedy until they come for you. You think it's unrealistic? If so, your a fool.


No. I think abortion on demand is right, though. Lucky for me.

And I think atheists should be burned.

muscogee
10-29-2011, 20:42
And I think atheists should be burned. I think you need a lot more formal education.

Animal Mother
10-29-2011, 20:51
I am an atheist, and I am pretty strongly anti-abortion. I feel there are too many parents that would love to have a child to not have them then put them up for adoption. If this is the case, why are there so many children in the foster care system?

Animal Mother
10-29-2011, 20:52
Human morals change over time. What's so hard about that? Nothing at all, Paul is the one who can't decide whether or not he accepts that reality.

Kingarthurhk
10-29-2011, 22:27
If this is the case, why are there so many children in the foster care system?

And I suppose you take Jonathan Swift seriously?

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

PlayboyPenguin
10-29-2011, 23:50
If this is the case, why are there so many children in the foster care system?
Because the foster care system does not deal with new born children. It primarily deals with children that enter care at ages beyond walking and stay locked in legal battles to remove them from the parents for years. Then by the time they are free for adoption they are several years old and damaged both by their upbringing and the system.

muscogee
10-29-2011, 23:51
And I suppose you take Jonathan Swift seriously?

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Don't change the subject with a non sequitur.

PlayboyPenguin
10-29-2011, 23:51
And I think atheists should be burned.
You're welcome to come try it.

In my experiences it is always the smallest, most insignificant, and insecure examples of human beings that would wish violence on people they do not even know.

muscogee
10-29-2011, 23:55
Because the foster care system does not deal with new born children. It primarily deals with children that enter care at ages beyond walking and stay locked in legal battles to remove them from the parents for years. Then by the time they are free for adoption they are several years old and damaged both by their upbringing and the system.

So people only want to adopt perfect children? That's not very Christian. Kingarthurhk will take them all.

PlayboyPenguin
10-30-2011, 00:31
So people only want to adopt perfect children? That's not very Christian. Kingarthurhk will take them all.
People want to adopt infants. There is no denying that. Every agency in this country has huge waiting lists and most parents wanting infants end up having to look overseas to adopt.

Travelin' Jack
10-30-2011, 01:16
I'm agnostic and against abortion.

I'm also pro-choice. I will never be a part of or recommend abortion, but I think it's a moral issue and not a legal one. Everyone needs to make that decision for themselves.

creaky
10-30-2011, 02:10
You're welcome to come try it.

In my experiences it is always the smallest, most insignificant, and insecure examples of human beings that would wish violence on people they do not even know.

Your failure to get the point of my obviously outrageous comment is, well, expected. Thanks for reacting.

creaky
10-30-2011, 02:17
I think you need a lot more formal education.

What, so I can be a cool, progressive, post-Christian guy with a mullet, like yourself? Lol.

I do fine with my third grade education, thanks.

Will we be getting that cite I asked for a few posts back?

Japle
10-30-2011, 05:30
Posted by creaky:
Nobody ranting here but you, hamslice.

your (sic) a fool.

And I think atheists should be burned.

And now we see just who we’re dealing with. Name-calling and threats of violent death. :wow:

Kingarthurhk
10-30-2011, 07:20
So people only want to adopt perfect children? That's not very Christian. Kingarthurhk will take them all.

If I could afford them, and care for them all, why not? I plan on absorbing what I can logically and financially afford once I am sure I have an orderly and loving home for them. I am sorry you don't feel likewise.

muscogee
10-30-2011, 07:21
People want to adopt infants. There is no denying that. Every agency in this country has huge waiting lists and most parents wanting infants end up having to look overseas to adopt.

My sister was six when we adopted her.

Kingarthurhk
10-30-2011, 07:22
And now we see just who we’re dealing with. Name-calling and threats of violent death. :wow:

Odd, up until now, death to innocents didn't seem to bother you. Interesting.

muscogee
10-30-2011, 07:24
If I could afford them, and care for them all, why not? I plan on absorbing what I can logically and financially afford once I am sure I have an orderly and loving home for them. I am sorry you don't feel likewise.

On the contrary, I would too. Reality is a cruel master. The two of us can't take care of them all.

Kingarthurhk
10-30-2011, 07:31
Don't change the subject with a non sequitur.

Apparently, you are not familiar with a "Modest Proposal". Essentially a satire about eliminating social ills by eating the poor. It is particularly apra pos to the topic as it deals with eliminating a vulnerable class that has no advocate.

muscogee
10-30-2011, 07:43
What, so I can be a cool, progressive, post-Christian guy with a mullet, like yourself? Lol.
So you would understand the difference in a logical argument and a logical flawed argument. The it would be possibly to have a rational argument with you. Name calling is a logically flowed argument. It's the way children argue. It garners no respect.

I do fine with my third grade education, thanks.
Actually, you don't. You look foolish every time you post. You just don't know it.

Will we be getting that cite I asked for a few posts back?

Luke 7:31-32

31And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?
32They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

No. You're too immature and foolish to deserve it.

How does it feel to get a Creaky answer? Do you respect me more for acting like you?

muscogee
10-30-2011, 07:54
Apparently, you are not familiar with a "Modest Proposal". Essentially a satire about eliminating social ills by eating the poor. It is particularly apra pos to the topic as it deals with eliminating a vulnerable class that has no advocate.

I read it before you were born. In the context you used it, it's a non sequitur. It's a real stretch of logic to equate abortion with eliminating a vulnerable class. You're changing the argument to, "life begins at conception", and then build your argument on the premise that everyone agrees with you. Everyone does not agree with you.

Kingarthurhk
10-30-2011, 08:04
I read it before you were born. In the context you used it, it's a non sequitur. It's a real stretch of logic to equate abortion with eliminating a vulnerable class. You're changing the argument to, "life begins at conception", and then build your argument on the premise that everyone agrees with you. Everyone does not agree with you.

Before I was born? I sincerely doubt that. You're not 80 are you?

PlayboyPenguin
10-30-2011, 08:17
My sister was six when we adopted her.

And you somehow think that anecdote changes the reality?

Both of my sons were older when we adopted them, but that does not alter the fact that adoption agencies have huge waiting lists for infants. No such wait exists for older children.

muscogee
10-30-2011, 08:36
Before I was born? I sincerely doubt that. You're not 80 are you?

You're 80? :wow: Since you're still in school, I assumed you were younger. I read it in the Sixties.

muscogee
10-30-2011, 08:37
And you somehow think that anecdote changes the reality?

Both of my sons were older when we adopted them, but that does not alter the fact that adoption agencies have huge waiting lists for infants. No such wait exists for older children.

Why do you think you know what I think?

Japle
10-30-2011, 09:07
Posted by Kingarthurhk:
Odd, up until now, death to innocents didn't seem to bother you. Interesting.

Odd, up until now, you objected to killing people based on their backgrounds or religious convictions. Now you want to burn all Atheists.

Interesting.

Considering the time of night you posted your opinion that “all Atheists should be burned”, I figured I’d give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were drunk and just blowing off steam.

It looks like I was wrong. You really would like to see millions of people burned for their beliefs. Is that actually your position?

Kingarthurhk
10-30-2011, 09:09
You're 80? :wow: Since you're still in school, I assumed you were younger. I read it in the Sixties.

LOL. Still in school? To give you an idea, I've already missed my 20th year reunion for High School, and have been out of University for well over 13 years.:rofl:

creaky
10-30-2011, 10:45
And now we see just who we’re dealing with. Name-calling and threats of violent death. :wow:

First one, term of endearment. Relax.

Second one, quote mining by you. If anyone thinks the events of only 70 years ago can't be repeated, (you told Kingarthurhk he was being unrealistic), they are foolish. One who is or becomes foolish is referred to as a fool.

Third one, which is more outrageous? You supporting and calling for abortion on demand, the slaughter of innocents for any reason, or me calling for atheists to be burned at the stake?

I hate having to spell everything out for you guys. Actually read the thread, then maybe you'll have something other than feigned shock. Maybe you'll actually have some sort of an argument to support your beliefs. But I doubt it.

creaky
10-30-2011, 11:04
So you would understand the difference in a logical argument and a logical flawed argument. The it would be possibly to have a rational argument with you. Name calling is a logically flowed argument. It's the way children argue. It garners no respect.

I see. You should have a cup of coffee and wake up before you post. I think I have the drift here, but who knows?

Actually, you don't. You look foolish every time you post. You just don't know it.

Shucks, muscogee, you're making me feel bad.




No. You're too immature and foolish to deserve it.

So your statement remains unsupported and means nothing. Got it. Salute.

How does it feel to get a Creaky answer? Do you respect me more for acting like you?

Sour grapes. You have the right to your opinions and to express them. I disagree with all of them to date, as I can recall. Respect? As a person, sure. Your opinions and stances on the issues? No, not so much.

Kingarthurhk
10-30-2011, 11:07
Odd, up until now, you objected to killing people based on their backgrounds or religious convictions. Now you want to burn all Atheists.

Interesting.

Considering the time of night you posted your opinion that “all Atheists should be burned”, I figured I’d give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were drunk and just blowing off steam.

It looks like I was wrong. You really would like to see millions of people burned for their beliefs. Is that actually your position?

I posted no such thing. Your argument is with Creaky, not with me. I know all us "theists" look the same to you, but that is just redonkulous. I have been the one arguing consistantly against religious violence. Think before you post.

creaky
10-30-2011, 11:17
“all Atheists should be burned”, I figured I’d give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were drunk and just blowing off steam.

Kingarthurhk didn't say that. I did, as explained above. You should probably apologize to him. I'm not sure why you can't keep this stuff straight.

It looks like I was wrong. You really would like to see millions of people burned for their beliefs. Is that actually your position?

Abortion on demand. Is that actually your position?

Paul7
10-30-2011, 11:27
Actually, you don't. You look foolish every time you post. You just don't know it.

Stop projecting, Creaky is the voice of reason.

Japle
10-30-2011, 11:33
Kingarthurhk, you’re correct. I do apologize for attributing creaky’s comment to you. I was in a hurry to get out the door to rehearsal at church. Not much of an excuse, I know.
Sorry.

Creaky, you asked if abortion on demand is actually my position. Yes, it is. I’ve said so repeatedly. I stand by my position.

Now please tell us if you really would like to see millions of people (Atheists) burned for their beliefs. Is that your position?

Kingarthurhk
10-30-2011, 11:39
Kingarthurhk, you’re correct. I do apologize for attributing creaky’s comment to you. I was in a hurry to get out the door to rehearsal at church. Not much of an excuse, I know.
Sorry.

Creaky, you asked if abortion on demand is actually my position. Yes, it is. I’ve said so repeatedly. I stand by my position.

Now please tell us if you really would like to see millions of people (Atheists) burned for their beliefs. Is that your position?

Forgiven. Forgotten.

Woofie
10-30-2011, 11:48
Preventing murder isn't meddling in people's lives, although murderers would probably disagree with me.

Legally, abortion is not murder. It's never been objectively determined when life begins, so any moral argument on the topic is totally subject to our own bias.

Paul7
10-30-2011, 11:52
Legally, abortion is not murder.

And in Iran, stoning gays is not murder. So what?

It's never been objectively determined when life begins, so any moral argument on the topic is totally subject to our own bias.

Including your position.

Woofie
10-30-2011, 12:03
And in Iran, stoning gays is not murder. So what?



Including your position.

I never stated my position as fact. Don't imply that I did.

PlayboyPenguin
10-30-2011, 12:30
Why do you think you know what I think?
So, your defense of your argument is that you make anecdotal statements specifically to contradict facts without believing these anecdotes yourself? That has to be the worst defense of a position I have ever heard.

muscogee
10-30-2011, 13:00
LOL. Still in school? To give you an idea, I've already missed my 20th year reunion for High School, and have been out of University for well over 13 years.:rofl:

mea culpa

muscogee
10-30-2011, 13:03
Stop projecting, Creaky is the voice of reason.

You're quoting me out of contest. I admitted I was giving a Creaky answer.

muscogee
10-30-2011, 13:05
So, your defense of your argument is that you make anecdotal statements specifically to contradict facts without believing these anecdotes yourself? That has to be the worst defense of a position I have ever heard.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Kingarthurhk
10-30-2011, 13:18
mea culpa

No problem. We'll understand each other eventually.:grouphug:

Animal Mother
10-31-2011, 01:14
Because the foster care system does not deal with new born children. It primarily deals with children that enter care at ages beyond walking and stay locked in legal battles to remove them from the parents for years. Then by the time they are free for adoption they are several years old and damaged both by their upbringing and the system. How will adding ever more children to the system solve anything?

PlayboyPenguin
10-31-2011, 01:21
How will adding ever more children to the system solve anything?

You do understand that there are enormous waiting lists for newborns, correct? So how are you saying any children would be added to the system?

Animal Mother
10-31-2011, 01:32
You do understand that there are enormous waiting lists for newborns, correct? I understand no such thing. Based on anecdotal evidence, there may be waiting lists for healthy, white, newborns (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/01/04/adoption-waiting-lists-in-the-united-states/) but most adoptions are completed within a year of the adoptive parents being approved (http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=2161).
So how are you saying any children would be added to the system? Are you under the impression that the only children being aborted are healthy, white ones?

PlayboyPenguin
10-31-2011, 02:18
I understand no such thing. Based on anecdotal evidence, there may be waiting lists for healthy, white, newborns (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/01/04/adoption-waiting-lists-in-the-united-states/) but most adoptions are completed within a year of the adoptive parents being approved (http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=2161).
Are you under the impression that the only children being aborted are healthy, white ones?

You seem to have no working knowledge of the adoption system at all. Have you ever attempted an adoption? Why are you assuming most people seeking to adopted place so much emphasis on race? Most people in line for newborn children are willing to accept any race. I have been on those lists. We were willing to accept any race or sex and we were still way down on the list to the point were our wait was estimated to be several years. We ended up searching overseas before deciding to adopt older children. Unfortunately, most people on waiting lists for newborns do not end up adopting if they do not get newborns.

You are making the mistake of reading a poll on the internet by a company promoting adoption (that most likely deals primarily with independent adoption through surrogates for those with money) and a religious blog and thinking that is the same as having actual experience or knowledge. I like how it says most adoptions are finalized in less than six months when most states will not even begin adoption process until the six month mark.

maybe you should read articles other than the ones you can find that support your opinion.

http://infant.adoption.com/newborn/adopting-a-newborn-in-the-united-states.html

Animal Mother
10-31-2011, 02:26
You seem to have no working knowledge of the adoption system at all. Have you ever attempted an adoption? Why are you assuming most people seeking to adopted place so much emphasis on race? Most people in line for newborn children are willing to accept any race. I have been on those lists. We were willing to accept any race or sex and we were still way down on the list to the point were our wait was estimated to be several years. We ended up searching overseas before deciding to adopt older children. Unfortunately, most people on waiting lists for newborns do not end up adopting if they do not get newborns.

You are making the mistake of reading a poll on the internet by a company promoting adoption (probably for profit). I like how it says most adoptions are finalized in less than six months when most states will not even begin adoption process until the six month mark. No, I've never attempted to adopt a child, but presumably those involved in the links I provided have or were involved in the adoption process. While you might have been willing to accept any race or sex, simply surveying the situation for newborn, non-white children demonstrates that not everyone feels the same way. As the first link says, "Simple: the adoption market is built around healthy white infants. If you’re willing to remove even *one* of those conditions, the waiting list is short to non-existent."

PlayboyPenguin
10-31-2011, 02:35
No, I've never attempted to adopt a child, but presumably those involved in the links I provided have or were involved in the adoption process. While you might have been willing to accept any race or sex, simply surveying the situation for newborn, non-white children demonstrates that not everyone feels the same way. As the first link says, "Simple: the adoption market is built around healthy white infants. If you’re willing to remove even *one* of those conditions, the waiting list is short to non-existent."
There is the problem...you presumed too much. Those people that talk about the six month wait lists and those agencies that promote them are all for profit companies...and I mean huge profits. We chased down all those leads and ran down all those alleys ourselves being told the whole way how easy it was and how anyone can do it only to end up in a room with a man or woman telling us there is the small matter of the agencies $50k-$75k fee on top of expenses of the mother and legal fees. Total prices at the end ranged from between $100k up to $250K. So yes, if you are wealthy you can get a newborn pretty quickly. if you are not it is a long wait. There are no infants sitting in state care. In fact the only ones that even make it into foster care are the severely disabled ones.

Animal Mother
10-31-2011, 03:05
There is the problem...you presumed too much. Those people that talk about the six month wait lists and those agencies that promote them are all for profit companies...and I mean huge profits. We chased down all those leads and ran down all those alleys ourselves being told the whole way how easy it was and how anyone can do it only to end up in a room with a man or woman telling us there is the small matter of the agencies $50k-$75k fee on top of expenses of the mother and legal fees. Total prices at the end ranged from between $100k up to $250K. So yes, if you are wealthy you can get a newborn pretty quickly. if you are not it is a long wait. The first link I provided wasn't an agency, it was a person who had gone through the adoption process, clearly their experience differed from yours, but that doesn't invalidate it.

There are no infants sitting in state care. In fact the only ones that even make it into foster care are the severely disabled ones. The first link I provided wasn't an agency, it was a person who had gone through the adoption process, clearly their experience differed from yours, but that doesn't invalidate it.[/QUOTE] This is simply incorrect, there are numerous infants and toddlers in state care, whether or not they're available for adoption is another question, but it's absurd to think they don't exist.

PlayboyPenguin
10-31-2011, 08:23
The first link I provided wasn't an agency, it was a person who had gone through the adoption process, clearly their experience differed from yours, but that doesn't invalidate it.

The first link I provided wasn't an agency, it was a person who had gone through the adoption process, clearly their experience differed from yours, but that doesn't invalidate it. This is simply incorrect, there are numerous infants and toddlers in state care, whether or not they're available for adoption is another question, but it's absurd to think they don't exist.
No, you are wrong. There are no waiting healthy newborns in state care that are legally free. Every state agency you go to will tell you this. Newborn adoptions are done across state lines and every time a healthy newborn becomes legally free there is an extensive waiting list for that child. That is why there is so much money in surrogate births and also in "imported" children. Many other countries have stopped allowing US adoptions because the importing of infants has become a business for many people. I know people locally that make a lot of money going to European countries and pretty much buying orphans and reselling them here.

Paul7
10-31-2011, 08:31
I would guess pro-life groups would be willing to care for every baby saved from abortion. I recall Mother Theresa making that claim about her organization alone.

Lone Wolf8634
11-03-2011, 06:14
Personally I would never have an abortion. Since I'm not in any danger of becoming pregnant....doesnt really seem to be a problem. I would also advise against it if I were asked my opinion by a woman thinking about it.

That said, I think its a personal issue best left to the parties involved. Yes, many factors come into play..rape, health of the mother, how long the pregnancy has been allowed to progress etc. But I made my decision on the subject and I'm willing to allow others to do the same.

Kingarthurhk
11-03-2011, 17:24
http://www.edsanders.com/abortion/01.jpg