Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I didn’t “turn up” anything. I was forced to give reasons for my statement. I did so, and you decided to chime in. You proclaimed I am anti woman with no basis to your claim. When asked why you would say that, you had no response. This seems quite hypocritical, because if the roles were reversed, we all know you would not let me go that easily. Me though, being a man of honor, don’t give a flying fuck what you think. So answer or not, your choice. Have no fear though, I won’t start a new thread forcing you to respond through public humiliation.
SomeBODIEShero "You proclaimed I am anti woman with no basis to your claim."
Fairly sure this was the basis of the accusation.
Mon, 04/29/2019 - 14:53 (Reply to #27)
SomeBODIEShero growing inside a mothers womb, there by consequence of the mothers poor CHOICE,
Nobody's Hero: "If a women gets pregnant, who’s fault is it?"
Nobody's Hero: "Keep in mind, there is no religious overtones to my opinion here, so leave religion out of your response."
There is only one word for this statement.
One thing Religious Absolutists cannot do and are incapable of doing is keeping their Religious Absolutist beliefs out of anything.
SomeBODIEShero "what “evidence” do you want, and for what?"
For this claim:
04/29/2019 - 06:22
SomeBODIEShero "there are still plenty of secular arguments for the pro life stance."
" I am still providing you will plenty of great CHOICES "
Telling someone what you want them to do is not giving them choices.
"The pro life stance values human life"
The anti choice value their own views, and insist others must do as they want.
"I believe we need to recognize the value of the individual growing inside a mothers womb, there by consequence of the mothers poor CHOICE, "
I don't care what you believe, it's not your body you're insisting be used against your wishes, and that is as bigoted a piece of chauvinism as I've ever heard.
I have never "encouraged murder" this is the kind of bigoted lies and hyperbolic rhetoric the anti choicers always use.
"Why all of a sudden are we not allowed to prohibit abortion? "
Because it's not your body so it's not your choice, and there is simply no comparison between an insentient blastocyst, incapable of experiencing emotion, feeling pain, or storing memories, with a fully formed human being whose body you want to insist is used against her will.
What if an 11 year child becomes pregnant from an incestuous rape, and the child is unlikely to survive child birth? Would you murder that child by not allowing a termination?
And I will include religious beliefs or anything in this discussion if i am minded to, why do theists think they can come on here and tell atheists what they post? Read the fucking forum guidelines. I find the claim your prejudice is not religiously motivated highly dubious, the tone of your rhetoric and bigotry implies otherwise.
If a teenager need a kidney transplant or it would die, and the father was the only donor available, and that father refused to donate his kidney. Would you pass a law forcing the father's kidney be removed against his will to save the teenage child?
If you wouldn't grant this right to a fully formed and sentient teenager, using a man's body against his will, then it is axiomatic that there is no moral justification for forcing a woman against her will to carry an insentient blastocyst to term, just because your warped sensibilities insists an insentient clump of cells that cannot suffer its own termination in any way,, should have the same rights as a human being that can suffer physical pain and emotional trauma.
SomeBODIEShero "Also murder is a sin. "
Could you explain carefully why you think murder is wrong please.
How do you go about not justifying abortions that are condoned by God in the bible? In the Old Testament it was the priests who performed them. God himself orders the stomachs of pregnant women slashed open and the soldiers to laugh and sing as they toss the unborn babies onto rocks. WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU ARE GETTING THIS MORALITY FROM It is not from anything in the bible. God hates children.
@ original post by doG
As others have said there is quite a few references (god being for abortion) in the various bibles. But the religious connection? When I argue the abortion debate with religious people, typically in the end it boils down to: "soul" given by god, at moment of conception as why abortion is wrong, that a tiny pinhead size collection of cells = full human with full rights that supersedes even the mothers right to her own body because of this religious based "soul" idea given by an all powerful god entity that has a "plan."
Take away "god and soul" from the abortion debate and I seen many religious based arguments on abortion fall apart pretty quick in the face of facts and reality.
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
I have heard that, just can't find the biblical correlate. Besides the ridiculousness of the supernatural soul, I would like to sink their ark using their own foundation.
Socialism? Where the did that come from?
The only person to use that phrase ("anti woman") in this thread is you (and now me).
Seems you're having difficulties separating fantasy from reality.
Ha ha okay. Are we having a real discussion of abortion here or is just jokes from here on out? Cause if it’s the later I’m going to have to pass. If you don’t have anything substantial to add, then why say anything at all? I,for one, don’t find abortion to be a laughable topic. You forced my opinion and I have told you what I think. Have yet to see an intelligible answer from the all mighty atheist crowd here before us. Maybe we should just put an end to this discussion here...as I first suggested...???
I was not joking.
I forced your opinion? Is that even possible, what does that even mean? Exactly how and when did I do that? At this point I'm really confused; are you referencing a different thread? That might explain your statements about socialism, someone calling you "anti woman" when no one has, and how I could have forced your opinion. It seems that one of us has lost their marbles. Is it me?
@ Nobody's Hero
We already knew this due to you being a Religious Absolutist. As far as dignity goes, I have it, no Religious Absolutist does. As for objective hard empirical evidence, just read every post you have made. You provided it all for me.
“The standard belief for most Christians is that life begins at conception.” Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. Where is your objective hard empirical evidence. Prove life begins at conception. Otherwise, your belief is only a lie. Bullshit. Horse hoowhee.
The actual standard for the beginning of life is when it is viable. When it can exist without life support. In other words, conception is NOT when life begins. Rather it is the beginning of a possible life.
Basically, you are saying that without the woman's body, conception means that the zygote can be removed and will continue to grow into a new life. If it cannot, then it is not a life, rather a parasitic blastocyst.
This cannot be stressed strongly enough. The woman has ALL rights as to whether she wishes her body to used an incubator for what technically amounts to a parasite.
No it evidently is not. Your god is guilty of more murder than any other monster created by humans. Cannot have the double standard that murder is sin, yet commit more murder beyond imagination.
Homicidal - of, relating to, or tending toward murder.
1 Kings 18:39-40
2 Kings 19:35
2 Chronicles 15:13
2 Chronicles 28:9
Genocidal - relating to or involving the deliberate killing of a large group of people of a particular nation or ethnic group.
1 Samuel 15:2-3
1 Samuel 15:7-8
1 Samuel 27:8-9
Ethnic Cleanser - the mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society.
1 Samuel 15:3
1 Kings 18:39-40
2 Kings 19:35
2 Chronicles 14:2-5
2 Chronicles 15:13
2 Chronicles 28:9
2 Chronicles 34:1-7
Filicidal - a parent who kills, or daughter.
No it evidently is not. Your god is guilty of more abortions than any other monster created by humans. Cannot have the double standard that abortion is sin, yet commit more abortion beyond imagination.
Aborticidal - the killing of an unborn fetus, an abortifacient.
Abortifacient: Causing abortion.
Infanticidal - the act of killing an infant or unborn child; the practice of killing newborn infants or unborn children; a person who kills infants or fetuses.
1 Samuel 15:2-3
1 Samuel 22:19
2 Samuel 12:13-18
2 Kings 2:23-24
Sure is. Your deity is nothing more than what Richard Dawkins said it is.
Want objective hard empirical evidence? Browse this WWW site.
Also take a look at this WWW page. If you are capable of critical thinking, then you will see this as true: “You Christians are always saying we should fear your God. You just might be right. If you look at the top four faces above, your God is a pissed-off fire-starting power-hungry vampire. Hell, I'd be scared of a human if they had only those four qualities. And here is another point for you, there are 28 verses of your God's misogyny (woman-hating) against only 2 verses against homosexual men. Proof to me that your deity is nothing more than a Pissed-Off Power-Hungry Vampiric Firestarting Homosexual.”
How can your god be homosexual? Let's look. You have The Father (male), The Son (male), The Spook (male), and numerous angels (ALL male). Figure it out. Nothing but a bunch of horny males with only males to be horny with …
Yet, you seem incapable of presenting any. Only your Religious Absolutist edict of anti-choice. Prove “there are still plenty of secular arguments for the pro life stance.”
Additionally, there is NO SUCH THING AS "PRO-LIFE" in any religion, especially Christianity. You say "pro-life" when you actually mean "ANTI-CHOICE."
Just another long list in the Pure Evil and Immorality of ALL religion.
Okay. Let sift through another annoyingly long and convoluted post by Arakish to find the juice of the matter.
First of all, you are quoting what I said some religious people believe as justification to being pro life. If you “use critically thinking” you’ll quickly realize I NEVER said those were my beliefs. All I said was I was pro life.
Second. You keep calling me a religious absolutist, when there is zero evidence to me being as such. If I was a scientific journal, I wouldn’t let your dissertation 100 yards from my publication. Maybe you should go back to school and earn a fifth degree of science, and you might learn how to provide evidence before making a claim.
Third. As I stated before, I personally gave arguments for pro life with ZERO religious reasons. So keep your filthy Old Testament interpretations away from the conversations and provide me some humane and secular reasons why you think it okay to have an abortion.
Okay. We have come to the crux of your argument. You say life is when the cells are viable. You do realize scientist have been growing cells in a petri dish for years... right? That would make them viable from day one. But for your sake, we’ll pretend that’s not true. So what would you say? A fetus is viable outside the mother as early as 24 weeks, thanks to science. Would you at least publicly condemn abortions after 24 weeks?
@ Nobody's Hero
Yeah, let's sift through another Religious Absolutist's annoying failure.
However, every post you make is nothing but Religious Absolutist Propoganda. As I have alluded to many times, no Religious Absolutist can do, say, or write anything without letting their absolute religous beliefs shine through. And you did say it was also your belief. Go back re-read what you wrote. As said, no matter how hard you try, your Religious Absolutism is there for any and every person to see.
Also see above. I seriously doubt you even know what a scientific journal is, let alone a dissertation. I do not need to go back to school. The degrees I have already account for that. Besides, I already work in the field I have studied in: Yellowstone Volcano Observatory as Field Technician and Volcanology Analyst.
As for evidence of being a Religious Absolutist, I do not need to provide any since you have provided ALL that is needed in all your asinine, inane, risible, fallacious, and Religious Absolutist posts. All one need do is go back through all your posts.
Thus, why should I provide the evidence you have so graciously supplied.
Lie. You did NOT give any arguments without religion until your fourth post with this list:
1) Abstinence (like that'll happen!)
2) Free/cheap Contraception (why ain't you on the streets handing it out then?)
3) Adoption (have you?)
4) Motherhood (ever tried?)
Until here, everything you posted is religious. As is everything after your fourth post.
BTW: You forgot one. Arnold Palmer and his five sisters.
And this paragraph does nothing but show your lack of knowledge. Go back to school yourself and learn some biology. Now to bust it down.
Another favorite tactic of a Religious Absolutist. Remember that list I gave you?
With everything above this line of text, you have matched five. Two of them you matched with “You say life is when the cells are viable.” I NEVER said any such thing. I just wished you Religious Absolutists were such bald-faced LIARS! Go back and read it again. Try to at least use some Reading Comprehension since you seem incapable of critical thinking.
I said exactly, “The actual standard for the beginning of life is when it is viable. When it can exist without life support.”
As compared to, “You say life is when the cells are viable.” Go someplace else with your lies, deceptions, duplicity, hypocrisy, and treasonous treachery. And don't apologize. It would be nothing but an insult. As if you ain't thrown enough already.
You once said I was “full of shit.” Care to look in that mirror before saying it again? Who is the one has been “full of shit” since his first post?
Really? When did they start doing that? Oh, I know, back when I was a child and had to chase Tyrannosaurs from my backyard so my three younger siblings could play. Probably before you ever itched your daddy's loins.
Pretend what is not true? I don't pretend. Except in one possible scenario. Everbody: $10 says he can't guess it.
And on another further note. I act and say what I say here being my true self. When I am at work, I am probably more professional than you could ever wish I weren't. I come to these boards to be "myself." Don't like it? You know where the door is.
I come to these boards so I do not have to be the snobbish stuck up snitwit that you seem to be emulating. And evidently you ain't never heard of Christopher Hitchens. Exactly like him, I do not give a damn whether anything I say is offensive. In my over 55 years of life, I have learned one true truth: One cannot say/write ANYTHING of substance without offending someone somewhere sometime.
And as Stephen Fry once said, “It’s very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more … than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what.”
And to you specifically Nobody's Hero, I say, "Offended? Well, so fucking what."
Smdh. For the sake of my own sanity, I will no longer be responding you.
As if you Religious Absolutists had any sanity.
smdh = silently masturbating doing homework?
You know you can go blind doing that?
Ahhh...thanks man, there is some good info in that for me...appreciated.
SomeBODIEShero, you never responded to my questions...is it a woman’s ‘fault’ she becomes pregnant via sexual assault?
Additionally, if a woman or girl discovers she’s pregnant after a sexual assault, do you contend she should be denied an abortion?
"is it a woman’s ‘fault’ she becomes pregnant via sexual assault?"
Of course not, dude. In the context of my answer I was pointing out that if you are a sexually active female, you assume the risk of pregnancy. If you do not want to carry a child to term, then be responsible.
If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, it is not her fault. I am open to supporting abortion is this case (although it is an extremely low percentage of pregnancies), but also want to do our best to uphold the standard. In her case, adoption is an option, no?
What is your reason for being Pro Choice? How late in a pregnancy would you be okay with abortion?
I don’t understand how you can consider one fetus a person (when it’s ‘her’ fault) making abortion a murder and then not (rape/assault - not ‘her’ fault) making it acceptable. That’s just such a dichotomy.
To me, this is a very obvious indication that pregnancy-as-punishment is the root of your anti-choice stance.
I wonder if you are the madonna-whore complex with feet.
Well it is a complex issue. I am not a hardo, and much to your surprise, an empathetic individual. Nothing in life is black and white, and so is the case with the abortion issue. My hope for humanity would be that there were ZERO unwanted pregnancies, but alas, that is not the case. I am also sympathetic to the case in which a mother's life is at risk, and would allow it in those cases. It is not a dichotomy, it is trying to find a solution to a problem with the least injury possible, understanding that it is impossible to avoid it completely. I don't understand why this stance makes me evil. Not that I am implying you think this of me, but it is a common attitude.
Can you provide me with an answer to my question? What is the argument for being pro-choice?
I’m going to decline pursuing this conversation with you.
Of course I respect that, and will not ask you further. Just keep in mind you commented to me first. I was hoping at least we could have a discussion, I don't think I was at all being unfair. It does seem a bit unfair for you to come at me demanding (twice) an answer to your question, getting my answer, and then ending the conversation.
Oh well, seems that that is par for the course here...
I will happily discuss pro choice/life with you. I find it fascinating listening to people's reasoning on this very contentious issue.
To me it is so simple, when a blastocyst/zygote/fetus has rights that supersedes the mother's right to her own body is a matter of opinion. Full stop. So what do we do when we are stuck with a bunch of conflicting opinions? We find out which person's opinion matters over all the rest. And that is a simple endeavor, the person whose body is at stake.
A woman that wants to have a kid, absolutely no one is going to try to force their opinion on that mother, as it should be. Same should apply if a mother does not want to have a kid. Nobody gets to force their opinion on the mother.
What we have now and many "pro life" folks are pushing for is actually far worse and they seemingly do not even realize it. Women's access to choice for their own bodies becomes a matter of financial access not laws, rules regulation etc. Are you a single mom working 3 jobs to support 2 kids by yourself in a state like Mississippi? Guess what, abortion is not an option for you. In many parts of the country/world. If the pregnant women has access to money, then it is no problem, go on a little vacation to wherever abortion is still readily available and call it a vacation and no one would be the wiser, they do not even have to face people that try to "shame" them at the clinic parking lots as private clinics can be utilized instead, no waiting periods, no propaganda, just kind people to help support the mother through a difficult choice.
It gets worse, who has access to the most effective birth control stuff like IUD's yep, you guessed it, a select group of wealthier women. Condoms can break or be skipped in the height of passion, strict pill regimens could be accidentally missed, IUD works every time almost perfectly without fail.
So the people left without a choice? Yep, the most disadvantaged women that likely most need an abortion instead of a 3rd, 4th etc kid as they are already in dire financial straits. Additionally who can afford early pregnancy tests? Yep again, certainly not the poorest most vulnerable women.
These "heartbeat" bills are abominable, for the poor disadvantaged women, their only option to insure full control is: abstinence. If they do not want to have a kid there is almost zero chance they will even know for sure they are pregnant before the cut off date even after the many hurdles these women already face.
SomeBODIEShero, As soon as you’ve found yourself pregnant and not wanting to be, come back and we’ll talk again.
Nobody's Hero: "I was hoping at least we could have a discussion, I don't think I was at all being unfair."
However, Religious Absolutists are utterly incapable of having fair discussions. We are to believe exactly as you believe. You Religious Absolutists are completely uncompromising.