Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
541

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]pabergin wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

I recommend not doing as it is ridiculous. Claims that the earth is thousands of years old and that dinosaurs and humans lived together.

So juvenile.
[/quote]

Oh Perlenbacher, don’t be like Timon …

Pumbaa: Hey, Timon, ever wonder what those sparkly dots are up there?
Timon: Pumbaa, I don’t wonder; I know.
Pumbaa: Oh. What are they?
Timon: They’re fireflies. Fireflies that, uh… got stuck up on that big bluish-black thing.
Pumbaa: Oh, gee. I always thought they were balls of gas burning billions of miles away.
Timon: Pumbaa, with you, everything’s gas.

Scientists need to have a little imagination. They have to look up at the sky and wonder.[/quote]

Occam’s Razor says Timon may be right.
[/quote]

Heretic! Everyone knows they are pinholes in the firmament to allow the light of heaven to shine through![/quote]

Is that from the bible?[/quote]

No. Ancient Greco-Roman belief.

542

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re missing the word, “kind.”

Do me a favor. Google “How could all the animals have fit on the Ark” and go to a creationist website and read the explanation. Now you may end up agreeing or disagreeing but at least do yourself the service of understanding where creationists come up with a solution to this seemingly unconquerable dilemma.[/quote]

I’ll do that. [/quote]

I recommend not doing as it is ridiculous. Claims that the earth is thousands of years old and that dinosaurs and humans lived together.

So juvenile.
[/quote]

I’m open minded. [/quote]

Being open minded is one thing, trying to have an actual debate with people who think the earth is only thousands of years old is like debating people who think jews run the world and the holocaust never happened, they are being will-fully ignorant to claim such things despite overwhelming proof.

Being open minded means looking at things and not holding on to preconceived notions, but when we know for a fact the earths age, which is just over 4.5 billion years old, you have to be closed minded to that fact to believe it, making the people propagating it close minded.

When a 9/11 truther or a creationist tells you to open your mind they are actually asking you to close your mind to facts, in order to swallow what they are selling.

543

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

It’s not my story, it’s the story of a beautiful young woman I was involved with for a painfully brief amount of time.

But there are enough parallels that it might as well be my story.

[/quote]

And after you get done reading her story, be sure to watch the video of her dad being interviewed. Hilarious.

544

that was a good story. Its hard to create a.new belief system from scratch,and by yourself. At least as an adult,you can use your own mind to decide what’s right for you,rather than learning from family,etc. For me,this is where intellectual honesty came in. Example: Jesus is not mentioned by name by any historian from his lifetime,and there are actually several historians from this time period. If Jesus was walking around working miracles,raised a man from the dead,etc,this did not happen in a vacuum.

The gospels indicate he was well known,probably famous. None of his works nor his death are reported by anyone of his time. Nor do any of the treatises about and against religions of the time mention him or his following,until hundreds of years after his death.The first mention is actually of the Christians. Then a couple hundred years later,we start hearing about him from Christian historians. Now,if I am LOOOKING TO DEFEND Christianity,I can come up with arguments for why this is the case.

However,if I approach it with reason,I have to conclude that Jesus was not well known,probably didn’t work miracles(raising a man from the dead would make him a superstar),and very possibly didn’t exist(other “false” messiah’s are mentioned in some contemporary histories). In essence,Jesus presence on earth should be obvious. Its not. We have to believe the Bible and then seek out “proofs” from there. This is a.serious problem for me and one I was only able to come to terms with when I opened my mind. Confusion

545

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
I am curious if anyone here wants to help others find God? [/quote]

Personally? Nope and fuck nope. That’s on them, and it’s the only way it would be real.

What little I could help, all they have to do is ask, and I’ll give what I can. But end of the day, I don’t even think this is the type of area you lead a horse to water, unless that horse tells you it is thirsty.

There is a bit of that. We’ve been arguing with each other for awhile now. About the same shit, over and over, lol.

There aren’t very many regular posters here, or even semi regular that posts here, including Pitttt that I wouldn’t buy a drink, and likely even invite to sleep on my couch, if they needed it.

We’re all guilty of this now and again.
[/quote]

I understand where you’re coming from there. I am a bit that way also. Not meaning to criticize here,just asking the question…Isn’t the Christian mission to bring others to God? To preach the gospel? Remember the story of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch? The dude went so far as to run along side the chariot to explain salvation! And Paul said " 1 Corinthians 9:19-23King James Version (KJV)

19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

I just thought all Christians were commanded to help people find God.Confusion

546

An easier to understand version " 1 Corinthians 9:19-23Living Bible (TLB)

19 And this has a real advantage: I am not bound to obey anyone just because he pays my salary; yet I have freely and happily become a servant of any and all so that I can win them to Christ. 20 When I am with the Jews I seem as one of them so that they will listen to the Gospel and I can win them to Christ. When I am with Gentiles who follow Jewish customs and ceremonies I don?t argue, even though I don?t agree, because I want to help them. 21 When with the heathen I agree with them as much as I can, except of course that I must always do what is right as a Christian. And so, by agreeing, I can win their confidence[a] and help them too.

22 When I am with those whose consciences bother them easily, I don?t act as though I know it all and don?t say they are foolish; the result is that they are willing to let me help them. Yes, whatever a person is like, I try to find common ground with him so that he will let me tell him about Christ and let Christ save him. 23 I do this to get the Gospel to them and also for the blessing I myself receive when I see them come to Christ."

547

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pabergin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

God creates man in his own image, which is jealous (Exodus 20:5), vengeful (Deuteronomy 32:35) and wrathful (Nahum 1:2), then expects man not to be so, without even mentioning to man that it’s not okay to be so?

Oh, and Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, hates violence? Really?

[/quote]

Hey Varq,

I don’t intend to pick on you.

I think you’ve highlighted a common misunderstanding when applying these “negative” attributes to God. This is not intended to be comprehensive.

God is jealous: God is jealous for his people, his creation. If we are God’s people, he doesn’t want to see us stray to the other gods (alcohol, drugs, sex, self-indulgence, abuse of various things such that we disconnect from God, make God a low priority)

God is vengeful, wrathful: God is also holy and just. It’s along the lines of righteousness indignation. If God created us to be holy, as God is holy, and we choose to abandon him, then God will deal with us accordingly.

Also, we’re applying human emotions to God. God is beyond the human emotions he created. We don’t have sufficient language to discuss God adequately.

Just some ideas to keep in mind. [/quote]

Oh, absolutely. I agree. God is beyond human emotions like wrath and jealousy and pettiness and cruelty and vindictiveness and prejudice and irrationality in favoritism of one group of mammals over another.

Just not the God of the Bible.

[/quote]

Sure, that’s one way to interpret the Bible. Why do you choose this interpretation?

548

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pabergin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

God creates man in his own image, which is jealous (Exodus 20:5), vengeful (Deuteronomy 32:35) and wrathful (Nahum 1:2), then expects man not to be so, without even mentioning to man that it’s not okay to be so?

Oh, and Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, hates violence? Really?

[/quote]

Hey Varq,

I don’t intend to pick on you.

I think you’ve highlighted a common misunderstanding when applying these “negative” attributes to God. This is not intended to be comprehensive.

God is jealous: God is jealous for his people, his creation. If we are God’s people, he doesn’t want to see us stray to the other gods (alcohol, drugs, sex, self-indulgence, abuse of various things such that we disconnect from God, make God a low priority)

God is vengeful, wrathful: God is also holy and just. It’s along the lines of righteousness indignation. If God created us to be holy, as God is holy, and we choose to abandon him, then God will deal with us accordingly.

Also, we’re applying human emotions to God. God is beyond the human emotions he created. We don’t have sufficient language to discuss God adequately.

Just some ideas to keep in mind. [/quote]

Oh, absolutely. I agree. God is beyond human emotions like wrath and jealousy and pettiness and cruelty and vindictiveness and prejudice and irrationality in favoritism of one group of mammals over another.

Just not the God of the Bible.

[/quote]

Sure, that’s one way to interpret the Bible. Why do you choose this interpretation?

549

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Oh no, another thread derailed into believers vs non!

Someone should start a thread for “God Exists” or maybe “God Doesn’t Exist”

[/quote]

A very hearty LOL. Yeah, we should try that here; I don’t think it’s ever been done.

Premises. Conclusions.
[/quote]

Yeah I suppose that was naive of me. That’s what I get for being late to the discussion.

550

On the perhaps wildly optimistic chance that we can steer this debate back to the subject of the thread, which is the issue of abortion, I think people take for granted the proposition that pro-life is a “Christian” position and pro-abortion is an “atheist” one.

Certainly, on this thread at least, and on other threads where the topic has been discussed, the loudest defenders of the anti-abortion position have also been the loudest to proclaim their faith in Christianity or the biblical god, and vice-versa: the most conspicuous opponents of the the anti-abortion position, who seem to deny that a living human fetus is either alive or human (a fallacy I can only describe as an anti-tautology), also seem to be the most vocal opponents of religion.

I am going to link an article by a man most people have heard of, and have strong opinions about. Those on the anti-abortion side probably, if they don’t like Richard Dawkins, REALLY don’t like this guy.

And for those on the other side (what label shall we use? Anti-anti-abortion? Pro-abortion? Anti-life? Pro-choice? They all seem either too harsh or too wishy-washy), this man was likely a hero.

You may be surprised to read what he had to say about THIS PARTICULAR topic.

551

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
On the perhaps wildly optimistic chance that we can steer this debate back to the subject of the thread, which is the issue of abortion, I think people take for granted the proposition that pro-life is a “Christian” position and pro-abortion is an “atheist” one.

Certainly, on this thread at least, and on other threads where the topic has been discussed, the loudest defenders of the anti-abortion position have also been the loudest to proclaim their faith in Christianity or the biblical god, and vice-versa: the most conspicuous opponents of the the anti-abortion position, who seem to deny that a living human fetus is either alive or human (a fallacy I can only describe as an anti-tautology), also seem to be the most vocal opponents of religion.

I am going to link an article by a man most people have heard of, and have strong opinions about. Those on the anti-abortion side probably, if they don’t like Richard Dawkins, REALLY don’t like this guy.

And for those on the other side (what label shall we use? Anti-anti-abortion? Pro-abortion? Anti-life? Pro-choice? They all seem either too harsh or too wishy-washy), this man was likely a hero.

You may be surprised to read what he had to say about THIS PARTICULAR topic.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2003/02/hitchens200302[/quote]

Great article by Hitch. I love how he points out that religious people will use science for things they like and demand it from their detractors, but when they believe unproven things they call anyone asking for proof close minded or bigots.

His ethical opinion is the same as mine, he also recognises that personhood and the rights it bestows upon the individual itself is a constructed set of rights.

Just because I know they are a construct does not mean I don’t support them, the religious people just won’t accept morality and personhood are created things, not god given.

This is what makes it so funny.

552

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith, they believe what can be proved and not things that require belief without faith.

Comparing that to religion if moronic.[/quote]

Yet, when the science contradicts your belief you reject it, is particularly hilarious. Then you claim no faith. The conflict is blaring.

And since you seem to be the only one comparing religion to science, you are calling yourself a moron.

Life requires faith, you don’t know anything. You think you do, but your just trusting a bunch of people who are scientists aren’t lying to you. You’re not working the science, you’re not working the equations, you’re not interpreting results. You’re trusting people are telling you the truth. That’s the very definition of faith.

[/quote]

This is so silly.

I am trusting a bunch of scientists? No, you can look at scientific data and check the validity of the claim, or you can look at an invention and see it working, you can do neither for the insane religious claims.[/quote]

No you are not. First, you are ignoring the science. You are trusting neither the scientists nor gathering the data on your own.
So you are making a mockery of science, or trying to. You’re claiming to be all scientifical but ignoring the unequivocal, undeniable evidence that demonstrates that the life of a human being begins at conception. This is not a religious claim, this is not a historical claim, this is not a literary claim, this is not an athletic endeavor, this is pure science.

While claiming this adherence to science and it’s process, principles and underlying philosophy, you are contradicting the scientific data stating that an autonomous human life begins at conception, based on… well nothing at all.

Your argument is this in a nutshell: Abortion is fine because science. Science says that a human life begins at conception, so religion is stupid.

You are the one who keeps bringing up religion. This issue is so simple, so elementary, so black and white, so clear I don’t even have to mention it.

It seems to me the only science you are engaging in is finding how many ways you can hang yourself with your own rope. You apparently got a lot of rope and you don’t mind swinging. [/quote]

Yet again you did not show evidence for your claim personhood starts at conception or as a fetus. You merely rambled your way around it, demanding I disprove of a non truth.

I can’t prove unicorns dont exist, I say that the ones who claim they do show me proof, or else I won’t believe them.
[/quote]

That’s an interesting way to try and twist definitions, meanings and such. What ‘personhood’ is is a philosophical question not a scientific one. Science has no way to measure or define such a thing.
The definition can be such that even full adult human beings may not fit the definition.

The claim is very simple and a scientific one. That a fully autonomous human life is present in the zygote stage of human development, at the very least. This is what the study of embryology tells us. That the organism you want to kill, because it’s little, is a human being. I presented links. You can self-study, you merely need to google ‘embryology’ and you will get all the science you can handle, particularly if you want to get very technical.

The question, or requirement hasn’t changed since the beginning. Either, the living being in the uterus of a human female is a human being, or it’s something else.

I want scientific proof that the child, while en utero, is not a human being and thus is okay to kill.
I have provided scientific evidence that said child en utero is a human being and you have not provided anything to contrary. So I take it you cannot.

So, put up or shut up. Either prove these organisms in the zygote stage or later are not human beings, or just be ok with the fact that you are ok with taking innocent human life for superficial reasons.
You have a right to be an immoral person, just own it.

553

[quote] Pat wrote:

You have a right to be an immoral person, just own it.

[/quote]

This guy claims that morality and even human life are “constructs” and don’t actually exist. He’s a nihilist and moral reprobate.

554

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Oh no, another thread derailed into believers vs non!

Someone should start a thread for “God Exists” or maybe “God Doesn’t Exist” or possibly “I’m not sure if God exists or not, I can’t make up my mind”. Then we can keep other compelling topics on-topic and keep the faith vs no faith (or however you want to frame it) as its own subject.

Religious views obviously shape people’s ideas about abortion, justified violence and a whole host of other topics, but I’m calling shenanigans here! [/quote]

On top of the 30,000 such threads that already exist? No thanks.

555

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith, they believe what can be proved and not things that require belief without faith.

Comparing that to religion if moronic.[/quote]

Yet, when the science contradicts your belief you reject it, is particularly hilarious. Then you claim no faith. The conflict is blaring.

And since you seem to be the only one comparing religion to science, you are calling yourself a moron.

Life requires faith, you don’t know anything. You think you do, but your just trusting a bunch of people who are scientists aren’t lying to you. You’re not working the science, you’re not working the equations, you’re not interpreting results. You’re trusting people are telling you the truth. That’s the very definition of faith.

[/quote]

This is so silly.

I am trusting a bunch of scientists? No, you can look at scientific data and check the validity of the claim, or you can look at an invention and see it working, you can do neither for the insane religious claims.[/quote]

No you are not. First, you are ignoring the science. You are trusting neither the scientists nor gathering the data on your own.
So you are making a mockery of science, or trying to. You’re claiming to be all scientifical but ignoring the unequivocal, undeniable evidence that demonstrates that the life of a human being begins at conception. This is not a religious claim, this is not a historical claim, this is not a literary claim, this is not an athletic endeavor, this is pure science.

While claiming this adherence to science and it’s process, principles and underlying philosophy, you are contradicting the scientific data stating that an autonomous human life begins at conception, based on… well nothing at all.

Your argument is this in a nutshell: Abortion is fine because science. Science says that a human life begins at conception, so religion is stupid.

You are the one who keeps bringing up religion. This issue is so simple, so elementary, so black and white, so clear I don’t even have to mention it.

It seems to me the only science you are engaging in is finding how many ways you can hang yourself with your own rope. You apparently got a lot of rope and you don’t mind swinging. [/quote]

Yet again you did not show evidence for your claim personhood starts at conception or as a fetus. You merely rambled your way around it, demanding I disprove of a non truth.

I can’t prove unicorns dont exist, I say that the ones who claim they do show me proof, or else I won’t believe them.
[/quote]

That’s an interesting way to try and twist definitions, meanings and such. What ‘personhood’ is is a philosophical question not a scientific one. Science has no way to measure or define such a thing.
The definition can be such that even full adult human beings may not fit the definition.

The claim is very simple and a scientific one. That a fully autonomous human life is present in the zygote stage of human development, at the very least. This is what the study of embryology tells us. That the organism you want to kill, because it’s little, is a human being. I presented links. You can self-study, you merely need to google ‘embryology’ and you will get all the science you can handle, particularly if you want to get very technical.

The question, or requirement hasn’t changed since the beginning. Either, the living being in the uterus of a human female is a human being, or it’s something else.

I want scientific proof that the child, while en utero, is not a human being and thus is okay to kill.
I have provided scientific evidence that said child en utero is a human being and you have not provided anything to contrary. So I take it you cannot.

So, put up or shut up. Either prove these organisms in the zygote stage or later are not human beings, or just be ok with the fact that you are ok with taking innocent human life for superficial reasons.
You have a right to be an immoral person, just own it.[/quote]

Oh don’t get me wrong I don’t care how many kids get vacumed. However I like how you finally stopped asking for proof that a fetus is not a person once I asked you to prove it was. As you say, personhood is a construct, it isn’t an actual thing in and of itself, nor is it an absolute thing, it is something we erect based on the current moral code we were raised with in our time in history.

Also, you are immoral by many moral standards of other religions, societies, are you ok with being immoral in the eyes of Muslims? or buddhists?

Do you understand morals are constructs too and many different peoples have many different cultures?

You don’t believe in 99.9 percent of all religions and moral absolutist guidelines, I merely believe in one less than you.

556

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
On the perhaps wildly optimistic chance that we can steer this debate back to the subject of the thread, which is the issue of abortion, I think people take for granted the proposition that pro-life is a “Christian” position and pro-abortion is an “atheist” one.

Certainly, on this thread at least, and on other threads where the topic has been discussed, the loudest defenders of the anti-abortion position have also been the loudest to proclaim their faith in Christianity or the biblical god, and vice-versa: the most conspicuous opponents of the the anti-abortion position, who seem to deny that a living human fetus is either alive or human (a fallacy I can only describe as an anti-tautology), also seem to be the most vocal opponents of religion.

I am going to link an article by a man most people have heard of, and have strong opinions about. Those on the anti-abortion side probably, if they don’t like Richard Dawkins, REALLY don’t like this guy.

And for those on the other side (what label shall we use? Anti-anti-abortion? Pro-abortion? Anti-life? Pro-choice? They all seem either too harsh or too wishy-washy), this man was likely a hero.

You may be surprised to read what he had to say about THIS PARTICULAR topic.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2003/02/hitchens200302[/quote]

Great article by Hitch. I love how he points out that religious people will use science for things they like and demand it from their detractors, but when they believe unproven things they call anyone asking for proof close minded or bigots.

His ethical opinion is the same as mine, he also recognises that personhood and the rights it bestows upon the individual itself is a constructed set of rights.

Just because I know they are a construct does not mean I don’t support them, the religious people just won’t accept morality and personhood are created things, not god given.

This is what makes it so funny.[/quote]

Assuming there is no God:

Would someone explain the motivation for selecting one made up set of ethics over an other?

557

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]pabergin wrote:

In regard to your comment on hell and the love of God: God has given you free will, God allows you choose your ultimate destiny, though he may prefer for all to be saved.

[/quote]

How do you force yourself to believe something that you don’t? I can’t make myself believe in Bigfoot or ghosts. They may be out there, but I’ve seen no evidence of them. How can I make myself believe in God?[/quote]

What counting beans said.

But I’d read it with a hopeful interpretation instead of a fatalistic interpretation. If you’re really interested, follow your interest.

558

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Pat wrote:

You have a right to be an immoral person, just own it.

[/quote]

This guy claims that morality and even human life are “constructs” and don’t actually exist. He’s a nihilist and moral reprobate.[/quote]

Just like most of the atheists on this forum, with exceptions of course most notably Kamui.
What is striking to me, based on observation, is how he and all the others who have passed through say almost exactly the same kind of stuff, the same way and yet claim to be bound by nothing and adhere to atheism because they are freethinkers. Yet, they say and do all the same stuff as if they all scripted from the same play.
I beginning to wonder if there isn’t a secret atheist bible somewhere that they are all required to memorize like the Koran.
The irony of atheists all saying and acting the same way as each other, almost always punctuated with a great deal of anger, while claiming this ‘freethinking’ motif is not lost on me.
It may not be a religion, but it’s certainly cultish. Do you agree?

559

Good article Varqanir. Thanks for posting it.

560

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Pat wrote:

You have a right to be an immoral person, just own it.

[/quote]

This guy claims that morality and even human life are “constructs” and don’t actually exist. He’s a nihilist and moral reprobate.[/quote]

Just like most of the atheists on this forum, with exceptions of course most notably Kamui.
What is striking to me, based on observation, is how he and all the others who have passed through say almost exactly the same kind of stuff, the same way and yet claim to be bound by nothing and adhere to atheism because they are freethinkers. Yet, they say and do all the same stuff as if they all scripted from the same play.
I beginning to wonder if there isn’t a secret atheist bible somewhere that they are all required to memorize like the Koran.
The irony of atheists all saying and acting the same way as each other, almost always punctuated with a great deal of anger, while claiming this ‘freethinking’ motif is not lost on me.
It may not be a religion, but it’s certainly cultish. Do you agree?[/quote]

Militant atheism is certainly cultish. It’s also really childish. It’s like an inferiority complex or something.

But yes, I agree with your post. What strikes me is they don’t seem to comprehend the enormous implications of what they’re saying - ie, that morality doesn’t exist; that it’s a “construct”. That is of course moral nihilism. Of course they always deny that they’re nihilists and they try to take the moral high ground on things after saying they don’t believe in morality. All very odd but predictable as you say.