Abortion: Right or Wrong?

[Mare Tranquillity]

1)you understand NOTHING about the bible mare. so quit talking like you do.
2) we arent controlling their organs. we didnt make them get themselves knocked up. not letting them kill the child is not the same as makeing them have kids.
3) if we shouldnt have laws on based on religion than why do we have laws at all. morals can all be traced to religion.
3) once again you selfishly think of ONLY the womans rights and not the helpless childs. you hide behind your PATHETIC exuses. how sad.

The beauty of America is that you're entitled to your opinions--no matter how pathetic. Number 3 is patently false, many atheists and agnostics are very good moral people. It's hard for some people to believe but some of us do what we think is right because we think it's right, not because somebody wrote it in an old book somewhere.

I do think of the helpless child's rights, the right to be born into a family that wants them for instance. I've seen too many abused babies, burned with cigarette butts and the like to think that forcing a baby into an unhappy household does the baby any favor. There are worse things than dying.

 

[The Scotsman]

3) if we shouldnt have laws [on] based on religion [than] then why do we have laws at all. morals can all be traced to religion.

Hi Arbitor - many cultures and religions uphold different forms of "morals" or beliefs or whatever you want to call them all purporting to be done in the name of God. Here are but a few examples that you may find repugnent?

A 14-year-old Seattle boy refused to have blood transfusion because of religious believes. He died of leukemia several hours after the court affirmed his right not to have the treatment. Dennis Lindberg, of Mount Vernon, who was diagnosed with leukemia died at Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center in Seattle. He was Jehovah's Witness, who believe that blood is sacred and blood transfusion goes against their believes, thus rejecting the necessary treatment.

Superior Court Judge John Meyer supported the boy's decision saying that Lindberg was old enough to give him the right to refuse the transfusion.

Female circumcision, officially known as female genital mutilation, is one of the most political areas of women's health. Worldwide it is estimated that well over 100 million women have been subjected to it. Supporters of the practice say it is done for cultural and religious reasons, but opponents say that not only is it potentially life-threatening - it is also an extreme form of oppression of women.

One could go on and on! Are these practises that you would like to see brought into US legislation?

 

[arbitor]

1) im not a jahovahs witness so dont try to change the subject. he refused the blood and died. seiriously, what in the world are you trying to prove with that statement?
2)NOWHERE did we say we wanted all girls to get their tubes tied. once again you make up stuff to cover your a**.
3) moral atheisim is hypocracy. if there is no god and no soul than life has no real value than there are no morals. so why do we have morals? morals come from religion. thats where these atheists REALLY get their morals from.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

1) im not a jahovahs witness so dont try to change the subject. he refused the blood and died. seiriously, what in the world are you trying to prove with that statement?

If you stop competing you could understand better. Scots wasn't trying to "prove" anything, he was giving you examples of how the religion that you say is the wellspring of all morality differs a great deal from one culture to another. If all morality comes to us from a single God by way of religion, then we should all espouse the same moral standards--yet we don't. The examples he gave were to make that point, different religious traditions have different moral standards--who's right? How can you prove that it's you?

2)NOWHERE did we say we wanted all girls to get their tubes tied. once again you make up stuff to cover your a**.

Female circumcision is not getting the fallopian tubes tied, that is a method of preventing the eggs from traveling down into the uterus and thus preventing pregnancy.

Female genital mutilation is a surgical process which damages the clitoris and prevents sexual pleasure (it's way more complicated than that, but it's such a nasty, cruel, stupid thing to do that if you want the bloody details--like no anethesia for the operation--then you can research it on the net yourself. The vagina is also often sewed up leaving only a tiny opening the diameter of a wooden matchstick for menstrual blood flow and because when the husband next penetrates his wife it will be much like copulating with a virgin whose hymen is intact--very painful and potentially bloody for the woman. This process is another one of the things that has been supposedly commanded by God. Again, Arbit, Scots was making the point that religious morality covers a very wide range of activities.

3) moral atheisim is hypocracy. if there is no god and no soul than life has no real value than there are no morals. so why do we have morals? morals come from religion. thats where these atheists REALLY get their morals from.

Even a casual reading of history will show that many people have lead exemplary lives without resorting to religion. The fact that you cannot imagine this would seem to indicate that you are one of the many people--like my brothers admit they are--who has no internal compass that directs their actions. Some people have it, some don't. Please don't get offended here, it's not like this is something derogatory, it's simply a difference between people--in much the same way that some people are loners and some people like groups. It's just another way of being in the world.

 

[The Scotsman]

Just seen your post MT - you beat me to it this is what i was going to say much along the same lines as you....

1) im not a jahovahs witness so dont try to change the subject. he refused the blood and died. seiriously, what in the world are you trying to prove with that statement?.

Don't Jehovah's witnesses believe in God!!?? they have a moral objection to blood transfusions do you? Should blood transfusions be banned in America?

Sorry Arbitor I mentioned right from the very begining that I was not very religious so can you remind me which God our morals come from just so that I don't get it wrong. You see I get so confused these days - hey here's something that should please you! The Archbishop of Canterbury was giving a lecture not so long ago suggesting it may be time to consider bringing elements of Sharia Law into our legal system so perhaps one day we could be stoning women who have had abortions!!

That's the point of my last post Arbitor - on the one hand God believes in the sanctity of life and cannot countenance abortion and on the other God believes its' better to let someone die instead of having a blood transfusion! A moral dichotomy perhaps...........

But you're right we're getting off topic!

2)NOWHERE did we say we wanted all girls to get their tubes tied. once again you make up stuff to cover your a**.

errrrmmmm.........you've kindda lost me there mate!

 

[palerider]

I was just banned for life from the Political Hotwire discussion site because I trespassed on the religious beliefs of one of the moderators. He banned me with no explanation except the word "racist", which if anyone has read my posts is obviously a mere excuse. I did nothing to this man's religious beliefs except question the basis on which they were built and point out the glaring inconsistencies. I guess it was too much for him--it must be terrible to live one's life with so much fear.

It doesn't surprise me at all that you would get banned over attacking someone over thier beliefs. You attacked me seemingly without end over my "catholic" beliefs when I am not, and never have been a catholic. You may as well have been a card carrying member of the KKK and I black for the way you attacked me over religion when as far as I can tell, I never made a religious argument to provoke such an attack.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It doesn't surprise me at all that you would get banned over attacking someone over thier beliefs. You attacked me seemingly without end over my "catholic" beliefs when I am not, and never have been a catholic. You may as well have been a card carrying member of the KKK and I black for the way you attacked me over religion when as far as I can tell, I never made a religious argument to provoke such an attack.

I believe that this is the first time I have ever heard you whine and snivel--it's not pretty, Pale. Look up the word "catholic", the way I used it was correct. You have and still do advocate many of the same things and attitudes as the more rabid Catholics I know--you don't like that? Not my problem, I don't write your posts. Many religious people work very hard at not overtly using their religious beliefs to support their arguments because they know deep-down that religious arguments cannot be defended. So the fact that you do not use them is hardly convincing proof that you are not a sneaky Bible-beater trying to go stealth. Part of what does not convince me is that you do not often present cogent or valid arguments for your positions. A perfect example of this is your attitude towards gay people. If one ingnores the "ick" factor and removes religion from the argument, there is no rational reason to deny homosexual people equal rights just like the US Constitution says.

Well, I may be many things, but I'm not racist. The mod who booted me was follower of Joe Smith and I guess he didn't like my examination of his religion. Tut, tut, insecurity must be a terrible thing.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Somebody has to ask: who the heck is Joe Smith?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Somebody has to ask: who the heck is Joe Smith?

Joseph Smith, the man to whom the angel Moroni gave the golden plates that Joe then translated into the book of Mormon. Staring down into his hat he dictated the words to others. He also rewrote a portion of the Bible to suit himself. The other followers of Jesus set upon him and his people and drove them out to Utah.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Oh, that Smith. I tried a search, but...well, the guy's name is "Smith", so it wasn't sucessful.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Oh, that Smith. I tried a search, but...well, the guy's name is "Smith", so it wasn't sucessful.

Phone up your local Mormon church and they will have two young men in suits ride bicycles over to your house and tell you more about Joe than you ever wanted to know--and then some.

 

[arbitor]

I believe that this is the first time I have ever heard you whine and snivel--it's not pretty, Pale. Look up the word "catholic", the way I used it was correct. You have and still do advocate many of the same things and attitudes as the more rabid Catholics I know--you don't like that? Not my problem, I don't write your posts. Many religious people work very hard at not overtly using their religious beliefs to support their arguments because they know deep-down that religious arguments cannot be defended. So the fact that you do not use them is hardly convincing proof that you are not a sneaky Bible-beater trying to go stealth. Part of what does not convince me is that you do not often present cogent or valid arguments for your positions. A perfect example of this is your attitude towards gay people. If one ingnores the "ick" factor and removes religion from the argument, there is no rational reason to deny homosexual people equal rights just like the US Constitution says.

Well, I may be many things, but I'm not racist. The mod who booted me was follower of Joe Smith and I guess he didn't like my examination of his religion. Tut, tut, insecurity must be a terrible thing.

i may not have been at your other site but im sure you deserved to get banned. you attack people just becuase of the fact they have a religion. i can tell by your attitude that you think any religious individual is incappable of reasoning becuase they are biased and brainwashed. you seem to have a vendetta against religion itself. you can accuse me of making an irrational assumption but is it any more irrational than you claims of pale being catholic? not all conservetives are "bible beaters" and catholics. you are just too blind to see past the absurd sterotype of christians that has been created in the last few decades that is simply not true. one last thing. you say we cant defend our religiuos beleifs but you know what? its not like you can defend your atheist ones. we dont have footage of the big bang. it is a theory that can be easily disproven by bodes law. neither can you prove evolution due to the billions of missing links we havent found.in fact we have no chains with more than 3 links and those links could possibly (and most likeley) be different species all together. there is evidence of creative design all around us. look at how fragile life is. look at the hostile conditions of other planets. how could nature work in such harmony and everything by so precise if it all exploded out of a tiny dot? im sure you would say "its evolution" but did you ever stop to think how your little evutionary genes were written. i geuss they were just there. my last point is that science cannot explain existence. matter is neither created nor destroyed. so how in the world could the universe come about. you say christians cant use their beliefs to prove their oppinion about how the universe was formed but neither can you, in fact, going by your science and its laws the universe shouldnt exist at all.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

i may not have been at your other site but im sure you deserved to get banned. you attack people just becuase of the fact they have a religion. i can tell by your attitude that you think any religious individual is incappable of reasoning becuase they are biased and brainwashed. you seem to have a vendetta against religion itself. you can accuse me of making an irrational assumption but is it any more irrational than you claims of pale being catholic? not all conservetives are "bible beaters" and catholics. you are just too blind to see past the absurd sterotype of christians that has been created in the last few decades that is simply not true. one last thing. you say we cant defend our religiuos beleifs but you know what? its not like you can defend your atheist ones.
we dont have footage of the big bang. it is a theory that can be easily disproven by bodes law. neither can you prove evolution due to the billions of missing links we havent found.in fact we have no chains with more than 3 links and those links could possibly (and most likeley) be different species all together. there is evidence of creative design all around us. look at how fragile life is. look at the hostile conditions of other planets. how could nature work in such harmony and everything by so precise if it all exploded out of a tiny dot? im sure you would say "its evolution" but did you ever stop to think how your little evutionary genes were written. i geuss they were just there. my last point is that science cannot explain existence. matter is neither created nor destroyed. so how in the world could the universe come about. you say christians cant use their beliefs to prove their oppinion about how the universe was formed but neither can you, in fact, going by your science and its laws the universe shouldnt exist at all.

The mod banned me for "racism" because that's the only thing for which one can be instantly banned for life. He recanted, reinstated me, and admitted being wrong. Try something else to attack me personally since you can't seem to come up with anything substantive to say otherwise.

I don't attack people because they have religion, you can believe anything you want to, no matter how weird and it's okay with me. It's when you try to use the law to make others behave according to YOUR beliefs that you and I butt heads. Stop passing laws against gay people until you have some reason besides religious dogma.

Pale preaches Catholic dogma, what else can I say, he's got it down chapter and verse. Like I said, I don't write his posts, if he doesn't like what he says then why does he write it?

Well, first off I'm not an atheist, and the stereotype of Christians isn't what I'm talking about. I want the killing and persecution of gay and trans-people to end, I've seen far too many of us beaten and killed, too many had their lives torn apart by discriminatory laws based on nothing but religious dogma. If you live your religion and stop trying to force others to obey it, you and I will have no problem. It's the coercion to which I object.

Well you're covering a lot of ground what with the big bang and evolution, but those are not issues I have expounded upon and as such are not really part of the discussion. Let's stick to the real discussion here, Arby, on another thread you called my posts spam for not addressing just the subject of the OP, but here you have made a long-winded personal attack on me with reference to science and evolution and atheism, but not even once mentioned abortion. You spammer!

 

[arbitor]

where has pale recited catholic dogma? just becuase people in that religion agree with him on certain issues that doe not mean he is affiliated with that religion. i would like to see quotes of him saying he is catholic.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

where has pale recited catholic dogma? just becuase people in that religion agree with him on certain issues that doe not mean he is affiliated with that religion. i would like to see quotes of him saying he is catholic.

Because someone denies something does not necessarily mean that their statement is true. He isn't the first Bible-beater to try to deny Jesus so that his arguments will carry more weight with non-believers.