Abortion

[ILOVEJESUS]

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!

[ghoulslime]

jimmyjet wrote

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.

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.

[Michael]

ghoulslime wrote

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

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.

[Semper Idem]

Kinich Ahau wrote

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

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.

[dogpet]

Kinich Ahau wrote

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!

Kinich Ahau nails it here.

The catechism is deeply ingrained in jimmyjet ccc2270.

The creep!

[jimmyjet]

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.

[dogpet]

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

[ghoulslime]

Michael wrote

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.

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?

[ghoulslime]

jimmyjet wrote

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.

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!

[ghoulslime]

dogpet wrote

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

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

[ghoulslime]

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.

[jimmyjet]

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)

[jimmyjet]

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.

[Sinfidel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_tr_k59O6s

[Sinfidel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm7gsNMETXM