Pro-life atheists

[Esquilax]

You don't know this. You don't even know the diameter of the baby's head(it would have been about 6.5 centimeters). It wouldn't have take hours or days to dilate her. They can't kill the baby outside the womb...so they have to kill it inside....or it becomes a patient.

Heywood is too much of a coward to address me, so he'll probably skip over this comment, but this right here tells me everything I need to know about his position. It's so sad.

Here we have a man, who has never been pregnant, and is not a doctor, and has no relevant training or experience at all, pretending to know things he can't possibly know about a case he's only barely heard of. How does he attempt to nullify Losty's case? "You don't know." But neither does he, a fact he's curiously avoided mentioning here.

It's the same theist logic we hear, over and over: "You don't know, so I must be right."

Everything is just opinions, so everything is equal... except for his opinion.

[Losty]

You don't know this. You don't even know the diameter of the baby's head(it would have been about 6.5 centimeters). It wouldn't have take hours or days to dilate her. They can't kill the baby outside the womb...so they have to kill it inside....or it becomes a patient.

Heywood is too much of a coward to address me, so he'll probably skip over this comment, but this right here tells me everything I need to know about his position. It's so sad.

Here we have a man, who has never been pregnant, and is not a doctor, and has no relevant training or experience at all, pretending to know things he can't possibly know about a case he's only barely heard of. How does he attempt to nullify Losty's case? "You don't know." But neither does he, a fact he's curiously avoided mentioning here.

It's the same theist logic we hear, over and over: "You don't know, so I must be right."

Everything is just opinions, so everything is equal... except for his opinion.

I'm still stuck on the speculum thing that came afterwards. I'm no expert, but I have never heard of a speculum being used to dilate the cervix for an abortion or a delivery. Why would women ever choose to spend hours in labor if you could just stick a speculum in and pry open the cervix super quick? I don't think that's a real option.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You don't know this. You don't even know the diameter of the baby's head(it would have been about 6.5 centimeters). It wouldn't have take hours or days to dilate her. They can't kill the baby outside the womb...so they have to kill it inside....or it becomes a patient.

Heywood is too much of a coward to address me, so he'll probably skip over this comment, but this right here tells me everything I need to know about his position. It's so sad.

Here we have a man, who has never been pregnant, and is not a doctor, and has no relevant training or experience at all, pretending to know things he can't possibly know about a case he's only barely heard of. How does he attempt to nullify Losty's case? "You don't know." But neither does he, a fact he's curiously avoided mentioning here.

It's the same theist logic we hear, over and over: "You don't know, so I must be right."

Everything is just opinions, so everything is equal... except for his opinion.

Come on Esq, it's not like anyone was listening to his irrelevant views anyway. I mean he's already made it clear he's not listening to ours

[Esquilax]

I'm still stuck on the speculum thing that came afterwards. I'm no expert, but I have never heard of a speculum being used to dilate the cervix for an abortion or a delivery. Why would women ever choose to spend hours in labor if you could just stick a speculum in and pry open the cervix super quick? I don't think that's a real option.

I'm no expert either, but specula (speculums?) are used to dilate the vagina, not the cervix anyway. In fact, the only references I can find to the use of the damn thing in childbirth at all is as a means to check dilation that's already occurring. They simply aren't designed to dilate the cervix.

But then, I did actual research, which is the difference here.

Come on Esq, it's not like anyone was listening to his irrelevant views anyway. I mean he's already made it clear he's not listening to ours

Yeah, but taking that fool to school is a pleasure. Besides, maybe an honest person might read this thread and realize how full of shit he is now, rather than being swayed.

[Losty]

I'm still stuck on the speculum thing that came afterwards. I'm no expert, but I have never heard of a speculum being used to dilate the cervix for an abortion or a delivery. Why would women ever choose to spend hours in labor if you could just stick a speculum in and pry open the cervix super quick? I don't think that's a real option.

I'm no expert either, but specula (speculums?) are used to dilate the vagina, not the cervix anyway. In fact, the only references I can find to the use of the damn thing in childbirth at all is as a means to check dilation that's already occurring. They simply aren't designed to dilate the cervix.

But then, I did actual research, which is the difference here.

I didn't do any research, but that's just because as a female I get to have these pesky Pap tests and so I have first hand experience with the evils of a cold speculum. :p

---

Heywood is too much of a coward to address me, so he'll probably skip over this comment, but this right here tells me everything I need to know about his position. It's so sad.

Here we have a man, who has never been pregnant, and is not a doctor, and has no relevant training or experience at all, pretending to know things he can't possibly know about a case he's only barely heard of. How does he attempt to nullify Losty's case? "You don't know." But neither does he, a fact he's curiously avoided mentioning here.

It's the same theist logic we hear, over and over: "You don't know, so I must be right."

Everything is just opinions, so everything is equal... except for his opinion.

Come on Esq, it's not like anyone was listening to his irrelevant views anyway. I mean he's already made it clear he's not listening to ours

The reason I like Heywood is because I suck at debating and he is great, ego boosting practice.

[Esquilax]

I didn't do any research, but that's just because as a female I get to have these pesky Pap tests and so I have first hand experience with the evils of a cold speculum. :p

Which is still one hundred percent more experience at this than Heywood has, and yet he's the one making declarative statements about what is and isn't possible, while you're asking questions.

It's just assertion, assertion, assertion with that guy.

[Whateverist]

Heywood is too much of a coward to address me, so he'll probably skip over this comment, but this right here tells me everything I need to know about his position. It's so sad.

Here we have a man, who has never been pregnant, and is not a doctor, and has no relevant training or experience at all, pretending to know things he can't possibly know about a case he's only barely heard of. How does he attempt to nullify Losty's case? "You don't know." But neither does he, a fact he's curiously avoided mentioning here.

It's the same theist logic we hear, over and over: "You don't know, so I must be right."

Everything is just opinions, so everything is equal... except for his opinion.

Come on Esq, it's not like anyone was listening to his irrelevant views anyway. I mean he's already made it clear he's not listening to ours

Yeah I just stopped by to call him a dick again. Esqy nailed it.

Here we have a man, who has never been pregnant, and is not a doctor, and has no relevant training or experience at all, pretending to know things he can't possibly know about a case he's only barely heard of. How does he attempt to nullify Losty's case? "You don't know." But neither does he, a fact he's curiously avoided mentioning here.

Ah, the power of the mind to find confirmations of what it already believes by any means necessary. But it is the galling insistence on coercing others to follow his moral dictates which makes him a pariah. Morals are consensual. We don't share his. If he had any manners he'd fuck off.

[Rampant.A.I.]

The question should be why the strongly Pro-Life religious have more abortions than pro-choice supporters.

2006: The Center for Reason: Responding to a claim by some conservative Christian leaders that abortion is an evil perpetrated by non-Christians, the Center -- a private research group -- decided to conduct a study to determine whether Christians have a fewer abortions per capita than do non-Christians. They determined that Christians have as many abortions per capita than do non-Christians. They analyzed state-by-state data -- perhaps from the CDC -- and found that the rate of abortion is the same in the most Christian segments of the population as it is in the least-Christian. However, the most highly Catholic segments of the nation showed significantly higher abortion rates. 3,4

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact4.htm

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/4051...-abortions

[Heywood]

The question should be why the strongly Pro-Life religious have more abortions than pro-choice supporters.

2006: The Center for Reason: Responding to a claim by some conservative Christian leaders that abortion is an evil perpetrated by non-Christians, the Center -- a private research group -- decided to conduct a study to determine whether Christians have a fewer abortions per capita than do non-Christians. They determined that Christians have as many abortions per capita than do non-Christians. They analyzed state-by-state data -- perhaps from the CDC -- and found that the rate of abortion is the same in the most Christian segments of the population as it is in the least-Christian. However, the most highly Catholic segments of the nation showed significantly higher abortion rates. 3,4

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact4.htm

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/4051...-abortions

The fact that Christians have more or fewer abortions has no bearing on the morality of abortions.

---

Well ok, let me take a leaf from your book.

'Science' actually tends to agree with the pro-choice lobby regarding when the line is drawn where a human becomes a human. It's always going to be a blurred line, but we can rule out stages such as the zygote.

But seeing as you pretty much agree with me that you're not here for a discussion, I see no reason to further engage with you on this subject.

When text books start describing the human lifecycle beginning with a 24 week fetus, then your claim science supports your position might actually have some merit. Textbooks do support my position that the lifecycle of a human being includes the zygote.

[Esquilax]

The question should be why the strongly Pro-Life religious have more abortions than pro-choice supporters.

I'd say it's a combination of actually buying into that ineffective abstinence only policies, plus the fact that the kind of person who'll attempt to legislate for everyone else's morals clearly has more than a few blind spots where consistent positions are concerned.

Additionally... people are hypocrites. This should be all too evidenced by the behavior of the anti-choice arguers in this very thread.

I got linked to this a couple months back, and I'm so glad I could find it again: if you ever want to be infuriated, these stories of vehement anti-choice supporters rationalizing away how their abortion is the only acceptable one should do the trick.