Abortion

[ghoulslime]

jimmyjet wrote

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)

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

[Sinfidel]

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

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, addressed the definition of a person under the Criminal Code of Canada. While the Criminal Code indicated a fetus is not a "human being," REAL Women replied that it is still a person, if personhood is taken to be a wider category than human beings. Lamer said that there was no proof of this interpretation. Furthermore, the negligence law, enacted in 1954, seemed to have been developed with no debate regarding the difference between a person and a human being. A person and a human being would be the same thing. With this evidence of legislative history favouring the view that the fetus is not a person, the Court declined to decide that the fetus is not a person on the sole basis of sexual equality, as argued by LEAF. Instead, Lamer briefly wrote that "The result reached above is consistent with the 'equality approach' taken by L.E.A.F."
Aftermath

On the question of whether a fetus is a legal person and thus has rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Professor Peter Hogg points partially to this case to say not. He also points to Tremblay v. Daigle (1989), and a lower-court decision in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General).

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

[lostsheep]

ghoulslime wrote

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

Simple, and to the point.

[jimmyjet]

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League



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

[jimmyjet]

being pro-life an atheist's view

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

[jimmyjet]

Hitchens: Humanism and abortion



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

[jimmyjet]

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 !!

[Kinich Ahau]

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

[ghoulslime]

jimmyjet wrote

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

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

CreepyJimmyJerry's logical fallacy of the day:

Argumentum ad Populum

[ILOVEJESUS]

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.

[Michael]

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?

[Michael]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

By the way I know of no one here who is actively promoting abortion. As long as the fetus is not cognitive, I have no issues with it when necessary.

Does being pro-population-control count?

[ILOVEJESUS]

Michael wrote

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?

[Michael]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

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.

[jimmyjet]

I became prolife because my biology class taught a section about the development of the human embryo and fetus. I saw a human life as beginning at conception and stretching in one continuum until the death of that being.

http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/reed.html