hi semper,

this thread is about abortion. and as i stated, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are just acronyms given to the 2 stances on abortion.

all the other life issues are just that - different issues.

we probably think the same on some of them, differently on others.

but a complete conversation could be started on any of them, that is separate from our discussion about abortion.

So I haven't posted for a bit because I only have my ipad and honestly writing out this stuff on a digital keypad is tiresome and too time consuming to do sometimes. However, since today is 'you literally can't do anything Friday', I have some spare time on my hands.

My point with that- and one that I noticed you in no way tried to disagree with - is that our society considers our 'life' to begin upon exiting the womb. If I remember correctly it was simply a precursor argument to counter some statement you made and to set up my argument. You'll have to forgive me as I don't remember the exact set-up that caused me to remark this and don't feel that going back to re-hash this would be particularly rewarding as far as this discussion goes.

Having said that, my statement remains true. We as a society consider 'life' to begin at birth. You try telling a bartender that actually, a 17-and-a-half year old has been alive for more than 18 years if you count gestation (if you count gestation) and see if that results in him getting his first beer. Hint: it won't.


That is true.

No. It's about a lot more than that. When you simplify and black-and-white the issue (as people against abortion generally tend to do), you want to phrase the argument only in terms that will help support your argument. Hence why earlier in this thread you stated the argument as "killing unborn babies" or "not killing unborn babies". This allows you to frame the argument in terms that only help your particular viewpoint.
This also means that you completely disregard the rights of the other people involved. After all, it takes three people to make a baby, and you would completely disregard the rights of two of those people in your argument.
Hell, even this is unfair because in order for me to explain it to you I've realised that I've had to frame my argument in terms that are beneficial to you, in describing the pre-birth as a person. As such, I will no longer be doing so. Now I need a new name for that. So far the best I have is pre-birth (and even I don't like that term. Surely there is a better medical term I can find).

See what I mean, your entire argument hinges on framing the argument in a way beneficial to you and ignoring the rights of the actual people involved.


As much as there's an exact generation at which we evolved in homo sapiens sapiens. Which is to say, it's not that simple.


Once again, you're trying to frame the discussion in ways that only benefit your argument, and I won't do that.
This is more to consider than what you propose.

I will need to do more research and reading before I go down this line of discussion.

I believe, if I remember correctly, that you took the wrong insinuation from my statement. When I said 'we have not heard a good secular argument that is against abortion' or whatever my wording was, I did not mean your argument was good, but theistic.
I meant that your argument may be secular, but it's not particularly good. I hope that clears it up.

hi michael,

there are no rights to discuss about the parents, as they have none, when it comes down to murdering someone.

each couple has the right to choose whether they want to have sex.

once they make their choice, and that choice results in a new life, they have no right to get rid of the unborn - any more than they have the right to get rid of anyone else.

it is so, so simple.

either one condones murder, or one tries to rationalize that the unborn is not human.

and of course, the rationalization is what is currently done.

biology 101 defeats the rationalization.

and as i previously stated, our birthday is a celebration day. for one, we know the exact minute of birth, or at least pretty close.

abortion is simply a couple's way of not taking responsibility for their sexual actions.

men want to be able to act on their sexual urges without any further responsibility, except to fork over some money once in awhile when accidents happen.

women want it because they know that sex is about the only way they have of having some sort of control in a relationship.

just look at the ridiculous dysfunctionality in society today. that is if you are actually old enough to remember when shows like leave it to beaver reflected the values in society.

sometimes it is hard to know that one is swimming around in a cesspool, when a cesspool is the only thing they have ever experienced.

Seems like the smeg gobbling, anal herpes that is CreepyJimmyJerry is still here... I almost wonder what the sad mentally deficient, anal fisted, woman hating fucker is saying, but then I doubt that it's anything that millions of equally dumbfounded dipshits haven't said before.

yes, i did disagree with this.

i mentioned now twice that the celebration of our "birth" says nothing one way or the other about our "life".

in fact, even our society makes abortion illegal after some "point" - when we become a human.

humans love to celebrate. they take about any event that they can dream up, and celebrate to it.

our "birth" is certainly a very significant moment in our "life".

for most of us, it occurs approximately 9 months after our life has started.

so by all means, celebrate it. celebrate our wedding day, the day we first kissed, the day we first held hands, etc. etc.

i am not at all knocking celebrating our birthday, or any other day if it makes people happy.

it says absolutely nothing about society talking about when our life starts.

abortion is about the easiest black and white issue there is.

and once again, people would not be rationalizing about it, if it did not interfere with their sexual activity.

the truth hurts. but i will continue to state it.

and people will continue to jump up and down in a tizzy, instead of admitting what just about everyone knows is true.

cuz then it forces people to actually take responsibility for their actions - something that in the past was engrained into our behavior.

but now, there is always someone else to blame - you know, like the poor unborn baby.

let me see, if we all act like the emperor without his clothes, we can rationalize that it is not yet a human !!

it is absolutely and positively the stupidest rationalization i have heard in a long, long time.

unfortunately, that rationalization is murdering millions of human beings, who are totally unable to defend themselves.

i couldnt care less if people want to believe in god or not.

and if the most of you want to rant and rave about how you hate jesus and the rc, that is your choice.

you arent hurting anyone but possibly yourselves, by allowing your anger to consume you.

but when people start murdering unborn babies, then i put my foot down.

Okay. Fair enough. You did.

Doesn't stop it from being true, though. Our society doesn't count the time in the womb as part of our 'life'. I will agree with you when you say that it doesn't go towards any consideration of when 'life' begins, other than to show other frames of reference for 'living'.

I will continue to maintain that in absence of evidence, you attempt to reframe the argument into terms that essential stop all discussion on this topic that may go against your very clearly catholic-influenced opinion.
(Now watch you go into a tizzy about how i'm somehow calling you a theist when I'm not).

Depends on how you define life. When we as a society talk about our life (as in living), it starts the day we are born. If we are talking in a different sense more akin to having the value of being alive, it's a more tricky concept, however you yourself have admitted that we as a society - medically speaking - consider it to be somewhere around the third or fourth trimester, I think. Once again I will reserve talking about this part of the topic until I have read up on it some more.

Either way, there is little basis to show our society considers a sperm and egg on the day of conception to be a living human, despite your attempts to frame it as one, as doing so allows you to not have to put forward an argument, or take consideration of the rights of the actual humans involved. You can simply, without any thought or effort, just keep shouting "it's murder y'all!".
But once again, if wasting everything with the potential of life is considered murder, then every masturbation, every period, and every attempt at safe sex would also need to be considered as such, which would put your argument at loose ends since apparently it's always the parents fault even if they use a condom and it breaks.

That statement is so far from the truth you need the hubble truth scope to see it.

It is a highly contentious issue with many grey ateas.



Pregnancy doesn't interfere with sexual activity, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Pregnant people can and do have sex.

Cool. Let me know when you actually start stating the truth.


So not just yet on stating the truth, huh? It's okay, I'll wait. You get your unsubstantiated claims out of the way first.


Ah, yes. The old 'rose coloured glasses'. It's complete trash, by the way.


Nobody blames a sperm and an egg for joining. It's just nature. However, just because nature can grow doesn't mean it's naturally got the right to in every case.

Give me one reason why any merging of sperm and egg naturally has the right to continue growing.

I know your answer - it's the only argument you've got. 'Because it's human!'.

But it isn't. It only has the. potential to become a human, in the same way as an individual sperm and an individual egg has the potential to become human.
And like in everything, the potential to do something, does not equal the right to do something.

The rights to the body firmly remain with the mother, and at this point it is her rigt to determine what course of action should be taken.

We can also do that if we act like people capable of using logic and not just emotional arguments - which is all yours is.


See? Emotional argument. "Oh, you're killing babies! That zygote is totes a baby! You monster!"
It's all you have. Not rationality, certainly not science or medicine (you yourself admitted that as a society, medically speaking, we don't consider it a human until much later - hence the abortion laws we have).
All you have left is the emotional argument. And it fails. Every time.

I'm not angry, and I dislike the accusation. If I'm angry, you're a theist. See? You don't like people telling you your own supposed mindset either. So please stop it.

And, once again, you attempt to frame the discussion in emotional terms ("murdering unborn babies!") to avoid having to come up with an actual argument.

This video is for you....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwN8oLsEZKg

I'm going to post this again because honestly it's really the only question I want an answer to -

Without resorting to an emotional argument, (ie "you're killing poor defenseless babies!" Or "what if you were aborted!", as neither has any rational merit, only emotional) tell me why a zygote - something that only has the potential to become human automatically has a right to continue developing and using the body of an actual human over the rights of the human whose body it is, and why should this supposed right not be afforded to every individual sperm and egg with that same potential?

[edit - after trying several times to edit this comment to something i was happy with, I've just decided to remove it altogether]

This is why I won't talk about this until I learn some more - just the little bit of reading on the topic has taught me my comment about trimesters doesn't make sense. So it's up to about 24 weeks in the usa, which is about 6 months in.
This is because it is around this time that the foetus is said to become 'viable'. That is, it could possibly survive outside the womb if prematurely born. Before that it is wholly reliant on the mother's body. So it would seem that medically speaking up until that point it can be considered an extension of the mother's body, I guess, rather than its own personnage.

The more you know.

What is it with you religiotards? You can kill all the babies you want, with total impunity. How many did that great man of faith, G.W. Bush, bomb to death, both in and out of the womb, in Iraq? Have you forgotten about the Priest who blessed the bombing missions to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many babies napalmed in Vietnam? How many had their throats slit in Syria?
The oligarchy don't lose any sleep - they know "thou shalt not kill" is only for the 99% gullible dumbasses. They're so stupid they forget that "Jesus died for your sins". So, kill all the babies you want, rob, steal, cheat, lie - Christ has already atoned for it all. Just say, "Hi Jesus" before you die, and you go to paradise.
Actually, abortion is the greatest gift a mother could give her child. Never having had a chance to sin, the child is guaranteed to go straight to paradise. Spared the trauma of birth, of lying in its own shitty diapers, the pain of teething, the childhood diseases - chicken pox, measles, the angst of adolescence, the horrors of old age - what kinder deed could there be than abortion?

hi michael,

i will try to address each of your points. but you made so many, that for now i just wanted to address this one.

it is not at all a catholic-influenced opinion, clearly or otherwise.

unlike most of you guys, the catholic church has no bearing on my opinion.

you have made the common mistake of stating that because i have an opinion that agrees with some entity, that somehow that entity has influenced me.

do i actually need to show the incorrect logic to this statement ?

i make every opinion based upon evidence as i see it.

for example, i would say that i was a practicing catholic until my late 30s.

but i never agreed with their stance on birth control from as early as an adult as i can recall.

life does not start until conception.

so preventing unwanted births is something that should be lauded.

now i am referring to birth control for married people. not talking about pre-marital sex.

so are you just gonna pick and choose ? the topics in which i agree with the rc, i have been influenced by them ? but the topics in which i disagree, i havent been ?

the rc does agree with me about pre-marital sex. but my opinion has nothing to do with the stance of the rc.

all i have to do is look around. we are killing unborn babies. we are becoming a walking cornucopia of stds. it loses the special sharing that a couple has when they save that for each other, etc.

over half of the adult population is now infected with herpes. and hpv among men is growing rampantly (exclusively from mouth contact with vagina).

and multiple partners is a big reason for the spread.

so i definitely see the wisdom in waiting for one's lifetime partner.

if you went over all the stances of the rc, i think you might be surprised that their opinion does not necessarily agree with mine.

but when we do agree, i have my own reasons solidly based on the evidence that i see.

if we assume that god exists, i am absolutely positive that the rc has no connection to god.

at its highest level, it is just a money-grubbing institution.

so there is absolutely and positively no reason at all why i would value the opinion of the rc.

so once again, i repeat. it is not about whether i agree with the rc, but rather whether they agree with me.

when you guys bring the rc into this, you have no chance of winning an argument that my opinions are rc-influenced.

but just because i do not value their opinion has no bearing on whether they agree with me or not.

enough said.

i forgot to add - i did not take this particular statement to say that i am theistic.

CreepyJimmyJerry, on a related note, have you ever licked a nice snatch?

Would you rather smoke a pole or poke a hole? :eh:

You keep talking about logic but I'm yet to see the proper use of it.

I didn't say your ideas were identical to the church, I said they were influenced. You can disagree with something influential, and still be influenced by it.
Mostly your sense of sexual morality reeks of a catholic influence.
Are you seriously going to tell me that after admitting you were involved in the catholic church up until you were 30 - including, likely, the time where you were developing a sexual identity. This means that your sexual identity was developed and likely moulded in and around the catholic church and its ideals.
Just because you left, and disagree with some of their ideas here and there doesn't mean you cannot be or are not influenced by that viewpoint.

That's like me saying that because I don't agree with every single statement that my parents make, I therefore must not have been influenced in any way by them. It's ridiculous.

Yet another bold, unsubstantiated claim from you which is shown to be untrue when investigated.
Which is a shame because there are some numbers you could have pulled which actually may have helped you. But, instead, you apparently pulled a number out of thin air that you thought would sound impressive.

The percentage of adults aged 20--29 years with genital herpes infection decreased from 17% during 1988--1994 to 10% during 2003--2006
Source: american centre for disease control
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5807a6.htm


In America nationwide, 1 out of 5 of the total adolescent and adult population is infected with genital herpes.


Source: dynamiclear herpes blog
http://www.dynamiclear.com/herpes-bl...es-statistics/

I'm yet to find any sources that give statistics close to yours, so I'm afraid citation is required here, else liar, liar, pants on fire.


But std's are a seperate issue to abortions. I would, however, like to go on record as supporting safe sex education in an attempt to minimise both std's and unwanted pregnancy. The best way to avoid an abortion is to not get pregnant, and studies have shown that comprehensive safe sex programs are far better than abstinence only solutions to avoiding pregancy.

http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuse...2&parentid=478

Well, let me try to help you out here, by streamlining it-



Point the first -
You are attempting to state here that abortion rules are set at around when we as a medical society define a foetus to be 'human', and this is supposedly around the first trimester.

Counterpoint -
All medical information I can find for this so far points otherwise.
Abortions via surgery can be performed up to 20-24 weeks into the pregnancy. This is closer to the end of the second trimester than the first.
The law is such as this is about the time when the feotus is medically considered to become 'viable'. That is, it has the possibility to survive on its own outside of the mothers womb.

Challenge -
Medically speaking, as a society we pay no cosideration to when it 'becomes human', rather we focus on when a feotus could be considered its own independant personnage, rather than an extension of the mother's own body, to which the mother retains full rights to.


Additional challenge:
As I wrote yesterday:


Without resorting to an emotional argument, (ie "you're killing poor defenseless babies!" Or "what if you were aborted!", as neither has any rational merit, only emotional) tell me why a embryo*- something that only has the potential to become human automatically has a right to continue developing and using the body of an actual human over the rights of the human whose body it is, and why should this supposed right not be afforded to every individual sperm and egg with that same potential?


Start with all that and go from there. See! Simple!

Because it's such a 'black-and-white issue'. Right.

*note: this orignally said zygote (link here for definition), but I've changed it to embryo as I feel it is less specific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

I don't see anyone ranting and raving about how they hate Jesus. All I see is a religiously motivated person building his own scarecrow just so he can rip the stuffing out. Not allowing a human to develop inside your body is not defined as murder. Your argument is what you want, not what is.

If a zygote was a baby, we would call it a baby, not a zygote.
Just more big mouth / small mind hateful swill from the religious right.

hi michael,

i can buy your argument, in a general sense.

but applying it to me, not so much.

it is not just an rc sexuality. the sexuality that i have described is "christian sexuality".

and christian sexuality has not changed.

so in growing up, certainly the christian principles had a great deal to do with me.

so if you had asked me if christianity had a great influence on me when i was 18. then i would say yes.

but as i explained to you - i gave several specific reasons why today i see the wisdom in that teaching. not because it is a christian teaching, but by simply looking around.

i had heard the stats that i stated. if they were incorrect, sorry.

but the fact remains that stds are a big problem. abortion is a big problem, etc.

and as i also stated, i did not agree with birth control for married couples.

so even when i was a catholic, i was not simply a dyed-in-the-wool catholic, believing whatever i was told to believe. even as a young boy, i questioned, especially when i was told that only catholics were going to heaven.

so just because i am knowledgeable about the rc, does not mean that i am influenced by it.

as i have already stated, i know many atheists who are against abortion for the same reasons that i am against abortion. it is all about biology 101.

it is about being fair and honest with ourselves. and not allowing our sexual desires to produce the obvious biases that exist.

no entity in the world could make me change my mind about abortion.

now you may or may not believe what i am about to tell you - but probably the main reason why your argument does not apply to me very well is that i really did take the time to delete my brainwashing, and ask the hard questions.

just how many catholics do you know that are willing to admit that they dont really know that god exists ? this is by far the most extensive statement that a catholic or christian could make, regarding being willing to examine statements without bias.

i am very proud to say that i have accomplished this. it was not an easy thing to do. but as you probably would not be surprised about, i am very strong-willed. and desire for the truth is more important to me than emotional comfort.

2 words - biology 101

it is as simple as that, which is why it is such a black and white issue.

and as i already stated, the only reason that society disagrees is because it interferes with their sexual desires.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/Herpes/stats.htm

take a look at the meteoric rise in doctor visits regarding herpes from 1966 until today

About 79 million Americans are currently infected with HPV. About 14 million people become newly infected each year. HPV is so common that most sexually-active men and women will get at least one type of HPV at some point in their lives. Health problems related to HPV include genital warts and cervical cancer.


http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm


STDS ARE A BIG, BIG PROBLEM.


and the more partners, the greater the risk.


once again, basing my conclusions on facts, not influence of a religion.

Genital Warts — Initial Visits to Physicians’ Offices, United States, 1966 – 2012



http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats12/figures/46.htm

Human Papillomavirus — Prevalence of High-risk and Low-risk Types Among Females Aged 14 – 59 Years, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003 – 2006



http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats12/figures/45.htm

1.3 million abortions worldwide since 1980

http://www.numberofabortions.com/

Hey Jimmyjerk - Give us the miracle cure rates for STD's at Lourdes and those Benny Hinn Crusades.....
:lol:

Mostly had by nasty Catholics, since their religion FORBIDS the use of birth control, which other RESPONSIBLE people do.

Jimmyjerk is a mass murderer. He has killed more babies than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Kissinger combined. We refer, of course to UNFERTILIZED BABIES. Jimmy has murdered trillions upon trillions of them. Human sperm is alive, and human, and therefore constitutes human life. EVERY SPERM IS SACRED! Yet Jimmy does nothing to ensure their right to life. Jimmy is a BABY KILLER.
Stop the slaughter of unfertilized babies - make masturbation a Capital crime!
Contact your Republican Congressman now!

Couldn't Resist It!

Yes, Biology 101, of course!

http://www.poetryring.com/ra/blastocyst.jpg

A blastocyst is not a baby, you vile Catholic piece of shit!

By the way, Biology 101 (Biology one hundred and one) is not two words, you half-witted dolt! It is one word and one numeral, or multiple words, innit?

CreepyJimmyJerry has sent unknown billions of poor babies ejaculated to their deaths, into the concentration camp orifices of hundreds of farm animals. :|

Sweet cock of Jesus! Just imagine how many poor little babies he has blasted across the faces of the neighborhood kids alone! This sick motherfucker is worse than Hitler! :o

http://www.poetryring.com/ra/gpmKImU.jpg

I get the feeling that CreepyJimmyJerry doth protest too much. He must be absolutely riddled with STDs.

I only have a few minutes so I need to be quick, and will only address a few small things here. I will try to respond more properly tonight.
Firstly, thanks for providing some links, rather than unsubstantiated statements. I prefer dealing with actual facts rather than assumed ones (no, this isn't sarcasm. Sometimes these things can come across that way though).



This isn't an answer. At all. You can't just state that as though it proves your case somehow and move on. Here, I'll show you.

Two words - psychology 101.

It is as simple as that, which is why it is such a black-and-white issue.

...
...
...
...
...

See how that isn't an answer? Hopefully you do. Please, address what I said with an actual response or I will be forced to assume you don't have one.

i have already answered this previously.

if you dont want me to refer to the unborn as a baby, then i dont want you to refer to the born as a baby.

if you dont want me to refer to the unborn as a human, then i dont want you to refer to the born as a human.

you keep referring to the unborn as a potential human. this is simply false - biology 101.

is a 1-year old human a potential 2-year old human ? i suppose it is.

every second of our life, from conception to death, we are a potential form that we were not before. when i am 10,000 days old, i am a potential 10,001 days old.

a lone sperm or egg cell has not yet joined, to start the process. it is no more a human than any other cell of ours, or cell of any other animal.

to do as you ask, i will refer to this life as an entity.

the life of this entity starts at conception - again biology 101.

somehow society wants to define some other point in time that this entity becomes a human. as if it was somehow a kangaroo before then.

it is ONE ENTITY, once conceived. it does not die and start again. it simply evolves.

it is perhaps easier for us to accept this entity as a human being, when it looks more like other people that we see.

for the most part, none of us ever see people before they are born.

so when we appear to be more of a glob of cells, it looks less human to us.

however, it is the same entity from conception to death.

it is not a potential human, since it is already a human.

it has the potential to be born, or leave the womb - while it is in the womb.

once born, it has the potential to be a day older, etc.

from conception until death, we are continually evolving. but it is still the exact same entity.

so whatever you want to call this entity after its birth, you must also refer to it likewise, before its birth.

we typically use the term fetus to describe our stage of life while in the womb.

we typically use the term baby to describe our stage of life for a short while after we are born.

we typically use the term child to describe our stage of life from maybe about 2-9.

we typically use the term pre-teen to describe our stage of life from maybe about 10-12.

we typically use the term teenager to describe our stage of life from maybe about 13-19. although snotty brat is also sometimes used.

we typically use the term young adult to describe our stage of life from maybe about 20-30.

we typically use the term adult to describe our stage of life from maybe about 30-50.

and if we are still lucky enough to be alive, we reach middle age, elderly, old fart, and decrepit before our entity dies.

throughout all our stages of life, there was only one entity.

the mistake that people make is that they try to play god, and use their subjectivity to define what this entity is.

as i already stated, take one exact entity, still in the womb.

if the mother does not want it, then it is not a human and can be aborted.

and if the mother does want it, and has a miscarriage, then she goes thru the trauma of losing her baby. and believe you me, she certainly thinks of it as her baby. and if you have the slightest bit of consideration, you do as well when you speak to her.

what is the only difference, in this case ? - the subjectivity of the mother or couple.

i am sorry - but check and checkmate - you have no chance to win an argument for abortion.

and as i have said for the umpteenth time, this would not even be an issue if it did not interfere with people's sexual desires.

everyone would all of a sudden think of it exactly as it is - a human from conception until death.

Rook to queen bishop 4.
You don't get to announce that, especially since you have flat-out announced that you refuse to change your mind in this. If you won't even come to the table on a discussion, you don't get to declare anything about that discussion.

By the way, good way to convince everybody here that you're not still trapped in the catholic mindset prison.
"Hey everybody! I've totally freed my kind and opened it up to new ideas and examined all my old ones! Except for this one. I refuse to change my mind about this one. But I swear I've opened my mind and examined everything else!"

Yeah, right. When you finally decide it's time to let go of what your catholic priests told you to think and are actually willing to even examine to possibility that you're wrong, then you can say what will and won't win an argument. Until then, you're not even in it.

No. How are you not getting it? You don't get to just declare something and have it be true because you say it is.
Back up your words, otherwise they are meaningless. Logic 101.
For someone who claims to be so good at it, you seriously suck at this. Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised, you've claimed many, many things without backing them up. Why should your supposed logic skills be any different?


How about "after-birth"? Wait, no, something else already uses that name.



Oh, okay. In that case you're saying it's not human? Guess your entire argument goes out the window, since apparently we're no longer terminating humans. So what's your problem, then?

No. It's not about the label. It's the essence of what you're trying to convey. Human, baby, entity, the point stays the same regardless the label.
"Oh, it's a poor defenseless [insert name here] and you're being a heartless monster killing it!"

It's the emotional argument. It's all you've got, it's all you've put forward. Yet you've not once been able to adequately show why this thing should be considered - especially in the early stages - anything more than a scraping of cells. Other than "because it is".
Biology 101, as though that's supposed to mean anything. I'm gessing you mean it along the lines of "it's just an obviously known fact that that smattering of cells is considered a human. You know it's true, you're just denying it".

No. This is no more an argument that "it's just an obviously known fact that god exists. You know it's true, you're just denying it. Theology 101".

No. I'm not impressed or convinced when the catholics do it, and I'm as equally unimpressed or convinced when you do.

Next time back it up with something other than "because I say so", but I know you won't because you can't. You don't have anything to back it up with.


So what? Only one of of those is a medical term, and you aren't using it correctly. The rest are nothing but terms we usecolloquially. You want to discuss a medical issue using colloquialisms? Who cares if typically we call them anything? This proves nothing, brings nothing to the debate, and serves no purpose other than to give you something to talk about. Because content-wise, you're really light.

And some people treat their dogs as their children. They are clothed, fed, housed, given the last names of their parents, are in the family photos, and treated in every way and every manner as if they really are their children.

Are you saying that because subjectively they view them as their children, they should also be treated as such? If one runs onto the road and is hit by a car, should we treat that as manslaughter?

No. Because it's not human, even if subjectively the mother views it that way. Legally, we don't recognise it as human any more than the dog.

https://www.sands.org.au/Assets/File...20Brochure.pdf

Page 8, last paragraph.


For a baby who is not born alive before the 20th week of pregnancy birth and death registration is not permitted. Birth and death certificates cannot be issued.


Notice that time-frame? 20 weeks. Around the same time as medically the foetus is considered 'viable'.

No doubt that when a baby is expected, the parents project all their hopes and dreams of what this potential person might be onto it, the person it might become. And when it miscarries, all those hopes and dreams - the person they saw it becomming - disappear.
They are not seeing the smattering of cells - they're seeing the future person they want it to be.

A mother who doesn't want the child doesn't have that burden. They are not projecting onto it. They see it for what it is at that stage.


And medically, legally - despite what the parent might hope for - we do not consider it one, because at that point it isn't.

Just like we don't call a 1-year-old a 5-year-old just because it will eventually become one. One day I'll be a senior citizen, that doesn't mean I get a pensioners card just yet, though.

Just like we don't call a dog a human because subjectively the 'parents' are projecting their desires onto it.

And try all you like to paint it as this living, breathing, thinking, poor defenseless 'entity', so you can bemoan how evil and monstrous we are for pushing for the rights of the human mother, who you openly admit you don't care about.

Legally, medically, in every way you've been shown to be wrong. And it doesn't matter how many times you claim you aren't - you have not, can not, present a single thing that isn't emotionally based.


Rook to king 4.

Checkmate.

"I refuse to change my mind, therefore I haven't changed my mind, therefore you can't 'win' this argument, therefore I win by default!

Checkmate, atheists!"


How woefully arrogant you are.

Swearing might get someone one your ignore list, but willful ignorance gets you on mine.

Congratulations, you made the list.

Michael, I think you meant "how woefully fucking arrogant you are". Didn't you?

Hmm, I read it as "how woefully fucking arrogant you are - cunt" :eh:

CreepyJimmyJerry is too dumb to know when his bum has been fucked raw, innit?

i have so checkmated you, that i have nothing else to add to my argument.

it is rock solid. and nothing you have just posted does anything to counter it.

your argument seems to incorrectly relate that my argument about abortion is somehow connected to the rc.

that is darn right silliness, and demonstrates that your argument has no legs to stand on.

it is one entity from conception to birth - that is biology 101. first page.

if you dont understand that comment, then i guess you havent taken biology before.

in case you have not, the ENTITY BEGINS when the sperm fertilizes the egg.

and there isnt anything subjective about it. the couple's level of desire for the entity is immaterial when discussing what the entity is.

it is not both a bag of cells that can be aborted and an unborn baby at the same time.

in case you did not grasp that statement of mine, i repeated it.

the entity starts at conception. any other point in time is subjective, such that society is playing god, and making its own decision on when the unborn becomes a human - based entirely on their unwillingness to take responsibility for their sexual behavior.

you guys dont want to hear the truth. i will continue to state the obvious.

your argument about legality is absolutely ridiculous - you must realize that.

as if somehow our LEGAL SYSTEM is about justice ? boy, do you ever live on a different planet.

legality is just that - nothing to do with whether something is just.

something is legal because some bigwigs are able to make a law about it.

medically ? all you are chirping about is at what point in time the entity can survive outside the womb.

again, completely immaterial as to what the entity is.

pretty soon, we will have couples arguing that a newborn is not a human when they dont want to take responsibility for it - with the argument that the baby cant survive on its own. it needs the care of other people.

wait till you approach that slippery slope.

the reason why abortion is legal is because the common thought process at least claims that it would hurt any politician who was actually able to make it illegal.

collection of cells before birth, collection of cells after birth.

a human before birth, a human after birth.

you claim that my unwillingness to change my mind demonstrates willful ignorance.

i claim it is because i have done a lot of thinking about it, and have heard these same arguments or rationalization that you are presenting countless times before.

and they are all totally defeated by biology 101, first page. that is not theistic, not the rc, not any sort of religion.

it is science, where we know exactly how our life begins.

NATURE provided most animals a sexual means with which to propagate the species.

it occurs when the penis injects sperm into the vagina.

and one of the sperm cells is able to fertilize an egg cell.

dont you feel a bit ridiculous trying to argue that i am using religious arguments or religious influence as a basis for my conclusions ?

So unfortunately someone quoted his entire response, completely negating the ignore list.
Unfortunately he's added nothing to his argument (Because he has no argument to add), instead going with the same tired bullshit and unsubstantiated bullshit "it's like this because I say it's like this, and I refuse to learn otherwise".

Please stop quoting the nonsense he spouts, I would rather not be subjected to his willful ignorance.

A potential human is not a human, you thick motherfucker. :|

Amen to that.


And A-fucking-men to that.

Jimmy Jerry, Holly Berry.

Who the fuck is god? :eh:

He caught a little altar boy and popped his cherry!

From what I've been following I think it's an entity that lives in one of the multiple dimensions up Creepy's arsehole. I believe his priest deposited it there when he was a youngster.

michael, you are now on my ignore list - not because you put me on ignore, but because you decided to behave rudely like the rest of your comrades that i have long since ignored.

i am surprised that you ran away with your tail between your legs though - instead of simply admitting that your arguments do not hold up to the real truth.

nothing can defeat biology 101. go to any textbook and it will tell you the same thing - the life-form begins when sperm fertilizes egg.

once it begins, it does not end until it dies.

whatever we call this life-form, it is the same label from conception until death.

this is 100% nature, 100% science.

any other notion is subjective, and ANTI-NATURE.

you had no chance at all to prove the unprovable.

my task was simple - cuz all i had to do was prove the obvious.

which is why i have called it the most black and white issue we have.

only humans and their sexual desires have tried to present rationalizations based upon their sexual desires to add any gray.

but like usual, rationalizations fall to logic.

So Ebola shouldn't be cured because it is technically alive? Genius!

Like all your posts show, you are a fucktard! As far as I know I am a little more developed than a sperm and egg. I also eat meat from cows/pigs/fish/poultry/sheep killed for my feeding, who are more developed than said egg and sperm. Quite what your point is is jaded by your fuckwittery!

God, is he still jabbering on? How does he not take a hint from pretty much everyone here?

Dude is as dense as his bible.

I think he's now only talking to himself. Everyone is either on his ignore list or he's on theirs.

Guy is tragically stupid. Not just regular stupid, but the special kind.

Poor little idiot.

What a fuckwit. Since time immemorial humans have been getting pregnant, having miscarriages, having abortions, abandoning their offspring, adopting infants or adopting out infants and in extreme cases even conducting infanticide. This is biology 101 advanced course you retard.

You might argue that most of this is not biology but anthropology which is sort of true. But anthropology is simply the study of human biology and behaviour. When a male lion kills off offspring in the pride that he hasn't sired we call this a biological function, so what's the difference? Unless perhaps, like a lot of katlicks you don't consider humans part of the animal kingdom. After all your previous Katlick drivel this wouldn't surprise me at all. Imbecile!

This creeeeeeeepy fucker increasingly demonstrates what a dense blockhead he really is. The harder he sticks his fingers in his ears, the more he thinks his invalid arguments have merit. Wowser! I would give a pretty penny to have a chance to slap his filthy mother across the face for not aborting this disgrace to the human race. Lollerkins! :rolleyes:

OK - so if we're talking abortion only, then the term is 'anti-abortion'.

The term 'pro-life' is very, very all-encompassing, and covers much more than just abortion.

So...why are you anti-abortion? If it's because you care about children? I can't really continue this discussion until you tell me why you have the position you do.

As for me...her uterus, her choice.

They it to try to frame the argument in favourable terms for them. "Are you against life? Why do you hate living?". It's because without facts to back them up, they have to rely on tricks like that and emotional appeals.
Though to their credit it can be quite an effective strategy if you don't know how to think for yourself.

hi semper,

i have the position i do because it is the truth. one life-form that evolves from conception until death. biology 101.

which means that we do not have the right to kill that life-form before it is born, any more than we have the right to kill that life-form after it has been born.

it is not about love for children, love for humans. it is simply fair-play.

once society makes a statement that killing these life-forms is murder, then it is murder at at any point in time, from conception until death.

because it is the exact same life-form. it's biology is one which is continually evolving.

now you may not want to continue the discussion, and that is your right.

but the discussion is not about my motivation.

in other words, my motivation does not have any effect on the actual issue.

this is the same mistake that many made in the other thread about god.

i made some comments. when they could not be successfully challenged, all of a sudden i am trying to spring theism on everyone !!

i have rock-solid arguments that cant be defeated, and sent michael fleeing with some silly excuse about me, instead of simply admitting that abortion can not be condoned, if we do not condone murder.

i dont really have anything else to add to this discussion. so i dont know if there is much else for you and me to say ?

my case is so strong that i dont need to say anything else.

unfortunately, the issue is being "solved" by entities with biases and things to gain, as opposed to those who are simply interested in justice and fairness.

My case is so strong I don't have to say anything, so there. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

You made some points Jimmy Jerry that were shit and I was one who called you out as being a theist trapped in an sheeps clothing! You have not been hard done by, and are open to spew as much cunt juice as your little pussy of a mouth allows you to. The fact is just saying something is so does not make it thus. Like I said, no one here is interested in killing children or babies. Abortion is not about that. If you believe that something is alive despite it having the cognitive recognition of being so, then you are a fucktard and I suggest you stop eating Cabbage!

Sent Michael fleeing, i.e., put Michael on ignore, just like everyone else on the forum.

You have a rock-solid head, invalid arguments, and are too cowardly to attempt honest dialog with most of the members of our forum.

Guess what, asshole, when you reach the point where you have ignored all of us, you will not longer be participating in our forum, and instead only spamming our forum with your drooling idiocy. And then you get the big boot up the arse, like so many other imbeciles like you in the past. Lollerkins! Your mother sucks donkey cocks.

Wait, did he say I went "fleeing"? Lol. I'm not surprised he would try to spin it.

By my reasoning, he was confronted by hard facts that concerned him and he couldn't really fight, so he doubled down on his stubborn held beliefs, exclaiming (as much for himself as anyone else) that he had "check-mated" us. It was an attempt to re-gain a control he was worrying was getting away from him.
In retrospect I should have kept pushing him - keep him off balance, make him confront the truth. Obviously I was getting to him, since he felt compelled to try to regain control in such an obnoxious manner.
Unfortunately, though, I let him off, because it sounds like he was able to spin it into what he wanted. No, what he needed. To get to put himself back on top in his mind.

Still, I don't regret it. I have always said I would rather have a worldview that accurately reflects reality, over winning an argument. Jimmy clearly feels that being able to tell himself he's superior is more important (case in point: the times he has declared himself the winner, or the time he tried to tell someone he that he would "destroy them in a competition of logic"). For jimmy, Being on top is more important than being correct. I have no interest in interacting with that level of douchebag.

It's a pretty disgusting attitude. I don't miss his posts.


That's my take, anyway.

In that case, neither do we. ;o)

I'll admit that one can be an atheist and be anti-abortion. One does not need to appeal to God to be against abortion. In a world where theists can be pro-choice (don't laugh; I've met a few in my time) surely an atheist can be anti-abortion, right?

All I really want is for the anti-abortion crowd that styles itself 'pro-life' to show some consistency. Apparently, that's too much to ask. Ah well, such is life.

Kinich Ahau nails it here.

The catechism is deeply ingrained in jimmyjet ccc2270.

The creep!

i am not laughing at all. many "christians" are pro-choice.

in fact, as i already stated, i dont find a heckuva lot of difference between theists and atheists with regards to abortion.

one of my best friends (older man) is highly atheistic, but still has the same opinions about abortion that i do.

i am somewhat surprised at the atheists who are posting here, that all have the same opinion.

you guys have simply demonstrated how controlled you are by the rc. it is more important for you to rant and rave and stamp your feet at how bad the rc is.

and then "choose" to disagree with whatever stance the rc has.

and you still havent figured out yet that you are still being controlled by the rc.

i am quite aware of a lot of atheists in real life who are anti-abortion. so if you guys were at all representative of the population as a whole, there would be some anti-abortion here on this site, as well.

it is one issue that makes me realize just how crappy and selfish many people are.

if you want to start another thread on other "life" issues, i will chime in on some of them.

in any case, there is no defeating biology 101. the life-form starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg. the life-form stops when it dies.

between starting and stopping, the life-form is an exact individual entity.

what applies before birth applies after birth, in regards to what it is.

and even michael, who cant admit defeat, cant overcome that simple biological fact.

For highly atheistic best friend (older man), read jimmyjet's priest.

There is certainly no reasoning with the fool over this or any other topic. He is an obstinate ideologue, who has sufficiently demonstrated that he has no interest in truth.

His mighty battle of logic didn’t last very long until he put me on ignore, huh?

If a delusional dolt rambles to himself on a forum where everyone has been put on his ignore list, does anybody hear it?

Lollerkittens, what an imbecile!

I wonder if he fertilized Jimmy's eggs for him.

Let's leave a quick reference to more of JimmyJerry's stupidity on another thread:

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/show...=17131&page=36

This might serve as a handy cross reference for anybody wandering onto this thread at random.

the following is some food for thought

i quoted 2 passages.

but as is stated, the issue of believing in god and abortion are SEPARATE ISSUES.

i could not care less what anyone's thought processes are about the existence of a deity. but we need to stop murdering people.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrin...e_atheist.html

To state the obvious, the only difference between my label as a pro-life Atheist and your label as a pro-life Christian is our outlook on the existence of a deity. Similarly, the difference between a pro-life Jew and a pro-life Muslim is once again rooted in religious differences. That being said, we can easily deduct that an anti-abortion position is not dependent upon adhering to a specific religion; thankfully. For example, one can be religious without ever taking a position on the abortion issue. Likewise, one can be pro-life without being religious. Because the two labels are independent from one another, it is not hard to imagine the diversity of personal convictions within the pro-life community.

I am currently concluding the final chapters of God is Not Great by the late Atheist, Christopher Hitchens; a post-abortive father himself. Hitchens, a hero to many non-believers, also noticed the reality of the unborn human life. I would imagine it took a great deal of courage to advocate the value of the unborn human despite the overwhelming number of supporters whom he knew would quickly voice their disapproval. For unfortunate yet obvious reasons, theists were just as reluctant to commend him. Undoubtedly, Hitchens has taught many non-believers and believers to rethink their position on the issue for purely scientific reasons. Like myself and the thousands of other pro-life secularists, Hitchens recognized that science had demonstrably proven that life does exist before viability and therefore deserved proper acknowledgement from the pro-choice side.
"As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words 'unborn child,' even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality." —Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great (pp. 220-21)

my previous post just goes to show how politics and other big entities run.

all they care about is their power.

in the previous example, the theistic community is not willing to commend a noted atheist, who was willing to stand up for the unborn.

and why ? simply because they did not want to have the possibility of atheism growing stronger.

so when the possibility of perhaps saving lives was weighed in against power and control, saving lives lost out.

big entities, i think without exception, care primarily to keep and grow in power. they do not exist for the betterment of society, just themselves.

Blastocysts are not people, ass fucker. Now go fuck your mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Sullivan

Is there no limit to the lying and deception these religious wingnuts will try?

:rock: Simple, and to the point.

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League



http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

being pro-life an atheist's view

http://www.gargaro.com/abortion/atheist.html

Hitchens: Humanism and abortion



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8HhTKzmvas

as i have stated, all sorts of atheists are pro-life.

the fact that none of you are, just demonstrates that this web site mainly exists to rant and rave about the rc.

and is filled with posters who are not able or willing to speak in a way that the rest of society would require.

i will repeat - the entity starts at conception, stops when it dies. in between, it is one exact individual entity. biology 101. sorry, but this is NATURE and SCIENCE.

you know those 2 things that you say you follow !!

i guess you only follow them when it suits your taste, which is pretty much what everyone does.

they dont want the truth, just whatever suits their beliefs.

i guess you and the rc do have something in common !!

I have to disagree with this. Fucking your mummy may be biological but it goes against nature.

Filled with posters who are all conveniently put on CreepyJimmyJerry's ignore list, so that he will not have to respond! :eh: Blastocysts are not people, ass fucker. Now go fuck your mother.

CreepyJimmyJerry's logical fallacy of the day:

Argumentum ad Populum

By the way I know of no one here who is actively promoting abortion. How would that go about anyway? We all deem it be a necessity. Doesn't mean it is pleasant or without its own dilemmas and issues. As long as the fetus is not cognitive, I have no issues with it when necessary.

Who is he even still talking to at this point?
Or has he finally achieved his nirvana - a forum full of people on his ignore list so he can post to his heart's content and not be bothered by those pesky rebuttals?

Does being pro-population-control count?

I see where you are heading. Perhaps actually, there is logic that pro pop control would be pro abortion. I would say incentives against expanding families may well be effective too?

I would agree. Pre-emptive measures are always preferable. I said as much earlier on.

way, way too many people have married these 2 issues.

the rc came out against it. so most atheists, at least at the beginning, came out on the other side, just like you guys have done.

if the rc says black, then we must say white

when hitchens lends his support for pro-life, the theistic community says no, we would rather kill babies than give any credence to an atheist.

if i accomplish one thing in this thread, it is to absolute, positively separate those 2 issues with a very sharp knife.

the issues themselves are completely separate. it is only the 2 sides of the deity issue that erroneously combine them.

there are 2 issues. since they are mutually exclusive, there are 4 possible mathematical stances.

belief in god and pro-life, belief in god and pro-choice, no belief in god and pro-life, no belief in god and pro-choice.

Okay JJ, I'll bite: what's your point? So what? I would still argue a prochoice stance atheist or no. When I thought of myself as religious I was still prochoice.

The only thing you have accomplished, dunce, is to demonstrate that you are the dullest blade in the drawer.

Now, go fuck your mother.

LOL !!! Thanks for keeping this thread entertaining, GS

I can’t take all of the credit! CreepyJimmyJerry provided all of the punchlines himself.

I think this guy has a future in comedy, if he can just get over the guilt of his past sexual relations with his priest. He should focus on good wholesome boom boom with his mother, once her genital sores have healed some.

Oh, mother! I do believe this biscuit has turned!

Would you like a spot of tea with that then, laddy?