The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians

[abaris]

He had an incredibly arrogant attitude and assumed anyone who disagreed was obviously wrong (this isn't what he got banned for though, that in itself isn't against the rules.) I highly doubt you are going to be like him.

Arrogant isn't a banning offense. I agree, he was one of the most obnoxious members because he never presented any original thought of his own. Which obviously led to his ban. Personally I wonder what's so hard about giving the quotes instead of selling other's works as his own.

[Losty]

People have rights. No brain, no mind, no person, no problem. As a society we have never been in the business of giving rights to the concepts of people in future, except in the broad sense that we assume that the future will contain people.

Does that mean you are against killing and removing a human being from the womb and cutting open its face to extract its brain?

Cutting open it's face? You are either very ignorant or you are so disingenuous that I would feel comfortable calling you a liar.

A lot of people are against partial birth abortion (which is something that is done at the base of the skull and does not involve cutting it's face open)
Personally, I am not, because when this is done legally it's almost always a last resort emergency procedure that is done to save the mother's life.

[Kingpin]

---

What about the rights of unborn women?

My two cents on abortion:

I am Pro-Choice.

However, I am not without reservations about it.

I found out someone close to me had an abortion.

I wasn't meant to find out, and I wish I hadn't.
The knowledge was thrust upon me.

I know this woman was mature and healthy, and had the means to raise a child;
and it is very probable that she used contraception, and it just didn't work.

I am disappointed in her, that she chose not to have and raise the baby,
since I know she could probably could have done so.

From where I stood,

it seemed to be a case
of her allowing her inconvenience to trump that child's chance at life.

However, I am not in her shoes,
and I don't know all the details.

If I did, my opinion might, or might not change.

The point is, I am not her, and I cannot make her decision for her.

If I, personally, was to become pregnant now, at this stage of my life,

- even if it was from a one-night-stand,
- even if I had been on the Pill and had used other means of contraception as well,
- even though I have never wanted to be a mother,
- even though it would not be easy,
- and even though I am Pro-Choice

....I would choose try to deliver a healthy baby and raise it to the best of my ability.

But here's the thing:

What I choose for myself might not be the right choice for someone else.

The factors are countless and varied.

Is abortion sometimes abused...wrongly employed as a means of birth control?  Yes.

Is abortion, in other cases, the only logical and humane solution?  Yes.

Are there females who regret having abortions?  Yes.

Are there females who regret NOT having abortions?  Yes.

THERE WILL NEVER BE A SOLUTION THAT IS 100% IDEAL.

Therefore,

the bottom line, for me, is this:

I can't make choices for other people,
and I don't think a judge or a committee or a politician or a religious leader
should be entitled to make this choice for people, either.  Even for a minor.

you can and should educate,
you can and should counsel,

...but she has to make the decision for herself,
and it's not a decision she wants to make.

We have the technology to successfully perform abortions in a clinical environment.

Making this technology unavailable to women is not going to remove the problem,
and it will increase other problems.

It is unnatural, yes...but so what?  That is no argument.
Everything mankind does, is unnatural.

For me, because of these factors,
despite that it will never be 100% satisfactory,
it is a decision that must be left to the mother.

The technology, education, counseling, support, and privacy
must be made available to ALL women,
because all their cases are different,
and it is not something any of us are qualified to pass judgment upon.

and the rest of the world is just going to have to accept
that abortion falls into its own category of human rights,
and it is the mother's decision, alone,
and it is she who must live with that decision.


I, myself, am not 100% happy with this reality.

but I see that it is the lesser of all the evils,

and no solution is going to be ideal.

---

There is literally nothing in this I disagree with.

Administrator Notice
There is for me - posting a monstrous quotewall simply to say you ajree with it.

[KevinM1]

Does that mean you are against killing and removing a human being from the womb and cutting open its face to extract its brain?

Cutting open it's face? You are either very ignorant or you are so disingenuous that I would feel comfortable calling you a liar.

A lot of people are against partial birth abortion (which is something that is done at the base of the skull and does not involve cutting it's face open)
Personally, I am not, because when this is done legally it's almost always a last resort emergency procedure that is done to save the mother's life.

I think he was making a "Planned Parenthood is making a profit selling aborted baby body parts!!!1!!!111" reference.

[Losty]

What profit can you make by cutting open a face and sucking out the brains?

[Losty]

I suppose he did say, extract. Hmm I wonder how high the market is for baby brains. Personally I prefer to slurp them out from a fresh skull. So much tastier that way.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I suppose he did say, extract. Hmm I wonder how high the market is for baby brains. Personally I prefer to slurp them out from a fresh skull. So much tastier that way.

[Minimalist]

More people who are overly invested in the results of other people fucking.  Fortunately, even most catholics don't pay attention to the fucking church any more.

[Esquilax]

  Fetuses and corpses cannot be compared with each other. Fetuses, unlike corpses, are still alive.

We don't need to fight for the rights of corpses as much as we need to fight for the rights of those who remain alive, such as fetuses.

Hey, look, you're the one that brought up "human appearances," as a reason one should force women to give birth, not me. If it turns out that's irrelevant to your argument- if, say, you'll disregard other things that have human appearances, like corpses- then that's on you. I brought it up specifically because it was a case in which your argument applies, but would be a ridiculous position to hold. It's called reductio ad absurdum, and what it shows is that consistently applying the argument you made would be ridiculous.

You sincerely believe that my statements advocate rape?

No, what I believe is that you're inconsistently applying your argument, and that if you weren't special pleading, then your statements would not only advocate rape, but encourage it. I know that's not what you're actually saying, which demonstrates that there are arbitrary limits to this "it'll become a person, so keep it alive no matter what!" position you're espousing. You don't actually think that being a potential human is sufficient reason to force women to do things they don't want to do, except in specific cases which you do for ideological reasons you're then attempting to dress up.

"If any other human hooked themselves up to a woman without her consent to feed off of her organs to keep themselves alive you would consider that insane, and them criminals." The problem with this particular statement is that it confers fetuses to be mere parasites; enemies of its host body: the mother. Such a viewpoint seeks to degrade the dignity of human persons; Mankind by extension. It also downgrades the natural aspects of pregnancy. 

So, do you have an actual argument? Because "this makes me feel icky," is not one of those. I don't care if you think this degrades human dignity: you said that fetuses should have human rights, and I quite rightly pointed out that even if we were to grant them that, that still wouldn't make it rightful for them to feed off of another person's organs without that person's consent. Your only answer to this is that you find that image uncomfortable; I take it you have nothing legitimate to say, then?

Fetuses have the innate right to absorb nutrients from the mother. It's nature; its how the mother's body operates. We shouldn't blame the fetus for obeying nature's laws.

Ahhh, so then when you said that fetuses should have human rights, what you meant to say was that fetuses should have special rights that no other person has, presumably just because you say so? Do you have any reason or justification for thinking that fetuses should have special rights, or is it just that this would line up with your ideological presuppositions, and so you're content to just sweep it under the rug?

The two partners would be irresponsible to engage in an activity that is objectively and widely known to produce additional humans. Based on this, the mother did give consent: she gave consent by having sexual intercourse to begin with.

Consent to sexual intercourse is no more consent to be pregnant than consent to keeping your own money is consent to be shot by a mugger shouting "give me your money or I'll shoot you!" Don't be obtuse.

We know that sexual intercourse produces children, so if we engage in sexual intercourse, we should expect children. It's nature, hence why the fetus isn't at fault.

By that token, we know that sexual intercourse sometimes results in fetuses that are spontaneously aborted, therefore abortion is okay... but I suspect you're just content to special plead that away too.

From the way I see it, we anti-abortion folk do not view the unborn as deserving of special rights, we seek to protect the innate rights of the unborn, and all other humans, particularly the right to life.

You're not in favor of special rights for fetuses, no! You just think that fetuses should be given a right that no other human being has under any context, a sort of "special right," if you will... oh, wait...

It's strange that you would be willing to compare the actions of the unborn to that of criminals and the insane.  

Sorry, but "that makes me sad," is not an argument.

[Esquilax]

People have rights. No brain, no mind, no person, no problem. As a society we have never been in the business of giving rights to the concepts of people in future, except in the broad sense that we assume that the future will contain people.

Does that mean you are against killing and removing a human being from the womb and cutting open its face to extract its brain?

So I guess this means you're still taken in by that Planned Parenthood video, despite the fact that it was clearly demonstrated to be highly doctored footage? Or, oh, actually, were you taken in by Carly Fiorina's blatant lie that that same fake video showed a baby about to have its brain harvested, when that was never depicted at all?

Which is it, Chad? Are you regurgitating the lie from the video, or the lie about the lie from the conservative politician who had never seen it? Which lie is the one you're telling here?