Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Thales750]

You have a hypothesis. You have presented it, without referencing any real evidence, and expected everyone to accept it. Most people seem to disagree with you, but you keep harping away on this point. I doubt there is anyway anyone could convince you otherwise.

It seems like the response from the religious group is that some people hold on to their beliefs really deeply, and they are not hurting anyone. Therefore why should anyone try to make them feel bad by casting doubt or suspicion on their belief?

I believe Galaxiom & CBrighton have effectively addressed that question.

Adam, you must truly be joking. You cannot ridicule someone for something and then make it ok by denying it. Go back over the last two or three years and look at all of the ridicule piled on to theist folk on these threads and then tell me that it is not the product of religious zeal.

If you punch me in the nose and then deny it, will I not still bleed?

And don’t come back with that lame argument about fundamentalist theist, we all know they exist and in much greater numbers than atheist. But probably not a higher percentage. You would think that by listening to this bunch, all atheists are religious fanatics.
You say that, "me saying it doesn’t make it true", and I say that denying it doesn’t make if false. Presenting a good case may get a murderer off, but he still committed the crime. (And notice I did not say alleged)

 

[Adam Caramon]

Adam, you must truly be joking. You cannot ridicule someone for something and then make it ok by denying it.

I don't deny that non-religious people have and do ridicule religious people. If you are someone who relies on common sense and logic, it is very hard not to ridicule someone who believes in certain religions.

If you are religious because your parents were, and their parents, etc., and it is just a part of you but you don't actually believe it (which is about 50% of religious people if I had to guess), then that's one thing. If you actually, truly believe that the things that, the bible for example, says happened truly did, then you should not be surprised when people ridicule you.

Go back over the last two or three years and look at all of the ridicule piled on to theist folk on these threads and then tell me that it is not the product of religious zeal.

Zeal, yes. Religious zeal, no. Not believing in something does not make a religion. Non-believers don't gather in their clubhouse on Sundays to discuss their non-belief. They don't share any practices or rituals except those that occur by chance. They are not a religion.

Changes always seem like a drastic event because people by and large do not like change. As non-religious people grow in numbers and start demanding that religion lose its stranglehold on our political system, more religious people will complain. They already do every day.

Everytime a news outlet runs an article about a molesting priest, a non-religious group wanting a cross taken off public land, or a different religion wanting their symbol in Arlington Cemetery, the Christians get all riled up and feel like they are under attack. They only feel that way because they currently have 80% of things they want their way, and that number is dropping. When it hits 50% (or lower), they'll be just like every other group around, which is not an attack, but leveling the playing field.

 

[Access_guy49]

If you actually, truly believe that the things that, the bible for example, says happened truly did, then you should not be surprised when people ridicule you.

That's a pretty loaded statement.
Now, i'm not religious, but... I don't ridicule people for their beliefs... Not believing, is a belief. The statment above basically states that anyone who believes something you do not, should expect ridicule... forgetting the fact that the bible is as real to them, as the earth is round.
I don't believe that someone should EXPECT to be ridiculed because they believe what they do...
Which really comes full circle when you consider what this thread was really about...
Religious people try to foce the religious aspect onto the abortion decision, those who don't believe then attempt to force THEIR belief that god doesn't exist. It may not be a religious battle, but it is a belief battle.

 

[Adam Caramon]

I don't believe that someone should EXPECT to be ridiculed because they believe what they do...

If you believed that thunder and lightning were a product of Zeus, while the majority of the world believes otherwise, wouldn't you expect to be ridiculed?

If you believed that there was a fat little baby with wings that shoots arrows at people, and they fall in love with the next person they see, and the majority of the world believes otherwise, wouldn't you expect to be ridiculed?

If you believed that a man was able to get two creatures of every known species onto a boat and then survived a world-wide flood, when the majority of the world believed otherwise, wouldn't you expect to be ridiculed?

If you say yes to the first two, but no to the third, then you just can't see past your own beliefs. If you think no one should expect to be ridiculed regardless of what they believe, then you are incredibly naive.

Religious people try to foce the religious aspect onto the abortion decision, those who don't believe then attempt to force THEIR belief that god doesn't exist. It may not be a religious battle, but it is a belief battle.

I would disagree. Non-believers aren't trying to force anyone to have an abortion, or (in general) to prevent anyone from having one that wants one. Religious people are trying to take that choice away from everyone.

 

[MarkK]

Religious people are trying to take that choice away from everyone.

And that is not an exercise of religion it is an exercise of power. There is no commandment to Christians from a biblical source that supports the exercise of political power to coerce people to conform to 'religious' ideals. Christ's message is personal, between you and your God. Action to coerce politically is not righteous.
IMO.

blessed are:

• the poor in spirit
• they that mourn
• the meek
• they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness
• the merciful
• the pure in heart
• the peacemakers

no honorable mention for the political activists

 

[Galaxiom]

My only interest is to point out hypocrisy whenever I see it.

Where is the hypocricy in what I have said? I fully support freedom of complete expression. It is a foundation of democracy.

The hypocracy is your attempts to shame atheists into silence accusing us of subscribing to a religion and using ridiculous terms such as zeal while you are content for the theists to loudly express their bigoty unhindered.

You have claimed that the expression of atheist thought is a "problem". Some theists may be uncomfortable in an environment where they are exposed to criticism but that is their problem resulting from their own deeply prejudiced attitudes.

The problems caused by religion are obvious and far from being limited to "extremist" groups.

 

[Thales750]

Where is the hypocricy in what I have said? I fully support freedom of complete expression. It is a foundation of democracy.

The hypocracy is your attempts to shame atheists into silence accusing us of subscribing to a religion and using ridiculous terms such as zeal while you are content for the theists to loudly express their bigoty unhindered.

You have claimed that the expression of atheist thought is a "problem". Some theists may be uncomfortable in an environment where they are exposed to criticism but that is their problem resulting from their own deeply prejudiced attitudes.

The problems caused by religion are obvious and far from being limited to "extremist" groups.

I see this is going nowhere. The point, well rather my desire, was to demonstrate how religious, atheist can be.

In the name of believing in "the facts" you (the big you) are able in your own mind to justify saying derogatory, belittling and insulting things about other people. And don’t forget generalizing them as well.

You will never admit otherwise, because then you would have become the enemy you despise.

And we couldn't have that, could we?

The reason I take a stand against atheist is because they rave against theist, yet carry the same banner. They mistake believing in God with worshipping God, yet they worship the absence of God.

I have no doubts about the existence of God, yet I have never criticized you for not believing, I merely point out that your behavior mimics that which you claim to despise.

A rose, by any other name. It’s smell is still as sweet. (Although, now days in the name of color, size, and resistance to disease, they have bread out the aroma; alas)

I hope, for your sake that you find power and wisdom in your lack of faith. Life has a way of making us question everything we thought we knew.

 

[Adam Caramon]

In the name of believing in "the facts" you (the big you) are able in your own mind to justify saying derogatory, belittling and insulting things about other people. And don’t forget generalizing them as well.

Ok.

You will never admit otherwise, because then you would have become the enemy you despise.

I don't deny that non-religious people have and do ridicule religious people.

Woops.

The reason I take a stand against atheist is because they rave against theist, yet carry the same banner. They mistake believing in God with worshipping God, yet they worship the absence of God.

The difference between the theist and atheist banner is facts. Theists say "You must do x because our book says so." Or, "You cannot do x because our book says so." The atheist says "You cannot do x because it has been proven to y and right here, z, is the evidence that proves it."

And, when you say "worship the abscence of god" what you mean is, they are proud of the fact that they don't believe. They might talk about it with other people, and they might even like to see religious-influenced legislation be struck down. Or in other words, not worship at all.

Life has a way of making us question everything we thought we knew.

Very true.

 

[Galaxiom]

I see this is going nowhere.

It goes nowhere because you don't engage in debate. You won't answer the points put to you or provide anything to back your position but instead just repeat your trite prejudiced perspectives.

In the name of believing in "the facts" you (the big you) are able in your own mind to justify saying derogatory, belittling and insulting things about other people. And don’t forget generalizing them as well.

The religious take themselves very seriously. They promulgate their rubbish and that needs to be countered in an effort to stop their prejudices damaging more people. Religious beliefs are bad for the planet and I stand by the right to make pointed criticisms.

Those who worship Abraham's hideous monster do not deserve anyone's respect any more than those who admire Hitler.

You will never admit otherwise, because then you would have become the enemy you despise.

An "admission" would require an acknowledgement of error so there is nothing to "admit". I despise religion because it demands influence based on ignorance and prejudice. Secular thought is based on fact so I really can't see how they can be at all compared.

The reason I take a stand against atheist is because they rave against theist, yet carry the same banner. They mistake believing in God with worshipping God, yet they worship the absence of God.

Worshipping the absence? What a ludicous suggestion. You use the emotive term "rave" to include all forms of expression because your goal is to shame atheistist into silence. Once again you demonstrate your objection to free speech.

I have no doubts about the existence of God, yet I have never criticized you for not believing, I merely point out that your behavior mimics that which you claim to despise.

You say you are not religious but have no doubts about God. That is a contradiction. You simply have never engaged in any critical assessment because your beliefs are religious.

It is your right to believe in a God and personally I don't care if you criticise me for not sharing your fantasy. However you should not expect your silence on this matter to be reciprocated.

You still have not pointed out what harm is done by atheist critcisms of faith. The truly faithful should not care what anyone says about their beliefs. Indeed few actions show such little faith as the desire to silence those who speak against a faith.

Like it or not, atheists will continue to to tell the truth about religion. I also support the right of the religious to tell their side. Then people can make an informed decision. Apologists who insist the debate should not be aired are the real problem.

 

[Thales750]

Thank you Galaxiom,

It's always nice to have your point proved.

You have absolutely no idea how I came to my understanding of the nature of the universe.

In my case religion has nothingto do with it. In fact I would be considered a heritic by many fundalmentalist.

Thank you once again, I could not have defended my case without you.

 

[Galaxiom]

Thank you Galaxiom,

It's always nice to have your point proved.

You have absolutely no idea how I came to my understanding of the nature of the universe.

In my case religion has nothingto do with it. In fact I would be considered a heritic by many fundalmentalist.

Thank you once again, I could not have defended my case without you.

If any post has demonstrated the case of the their opponent it is yours.

Again you show your complete lack of any capacity to engage in intelligent discussion. Your smug and inane claim, once again, that my case proves yours, is ridiculous and demonstrates your deep seated arrogance and profound ignorance.

Such is the nature of religious belief.

Intellectually you are a complete coward and a hypocrite. You mouth off with your own views, refuse to defend them and then accuse those who confront your beliefs of being "zealous".

You accuse atheists of subscribing to a religion then deny your your own, by definition, religoious beliefs. One does not have to be part of an organised religion to have religious beliefs.

Your "case" has amounted to nothing more than unsupported attempts to defame atheists in an attempt to silence freedom of expression. Meanwhile you exclaim your own criticsms yet pretend to be a moderate. By definition that is hypocrisy.

 

[Thales750]

Galaxion,
From my perspective this was never a debate. I merely pointed out that atheist are religious. Your belief in the “facts” of evolution makes you see my pointing that out, as an attack on your view of the nature of the universe.

By your own admittance religion should be destroyed. A trait shared by many other fundamentalist groups around the world.

The bourdon of proof is not on me, if you would make a list of the elements of theist religions that you abhor, you will find that those same elements are present in nearly all of your assertions in this thread.

A self evaluation is a very difficult and arduous process, one that many people never fully comprehend, let alone endeavor to complete. My humble suggestion would be a walk about, maybe you will find yourself at the end of such a journey.

As for my part, I have no desire to force my view of the universe on any other, if you were not born with the ability to see God, then the transformation from blindness is beyond my ability to heal.

Good luck to you, it would be interesting to see how your beliefs change over time.

 

[Thales750]

In fact, take a poll.

Based on the actions and assertions of this thread. Take a vote, debates are judged, let everyone reading this thread put in their opinion.

Do ya'll see evidence of religious fervor from the atheist posters on this thread?

 

[asgard]

Should abortion be legal? No at all? Only if the mother-to-be's health is at risk? If the mother-to-be was a victim of ra**? What do you think?

Is it reasonable in a world with a rapidly growing population to deny women the right to Abortin?

Only in the first trimester or in the case of >%50 death chance of the mother.

 

[Galaxiom]

From my perspective this was never a debate.

Clearly. As is typical of the religious, you see no need for critical assessment or supporting evidence of your beliefs and view any discussion as simply imparting your "wisdom".

I merely pointed out that atheist are religious.

The inane assertion that atheism is a religion is boring and has been debunked repeatedly.

Your belief in the “facts” of evolution makes you see my pointing that out, as an attack on your view of the nature of the universe.

Not like the completely unsubstantiated and contradictory "facts" you got from a stupid old book written by stone-age goat herders.

Evolution is supported by millions of observations and not one observation has ever provided the slightest suggstion that it does not accurately describe the process of diversification of the species from microorganisms onwards. Only a fool would dispute this.

A self evaluation is a very difficult and arduous process, one that many people never fully comprehend, let alone endeavor to complete. My humble suggestion would be a walk about, maybe you will find yourself at the end of such a journey.

How incredibly arrogant of you. You know nothing of the philosophical processes I have undertaken in my life.

Moreover, although you may have undertaken a self evaluation and arrived at what you understand yourself to be, it is abundently clear that have not bothered to evaluate anything outside of yourself. A self evaluation without such context is nothing more than philosophical masturbation.

if you were not born with the ability to see God, then the transformation from blindness is beyond my ability to heal.

Oh I hadn't realised you had actually seen God for yourself. What did He look like?

I guess I should accept your word for it then. Of course I will then have to also believe in Bigfoot, The Lochness Monster, alien visitors, yowees, and bunyips.

I would suggest you see a doctor about your hallucinations.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

How incredibly arrogant of you. You know nothing of the philosophical processes I have undertaken in my life.

He is the opposite of you maybe - ignorant of the process, but perceptive of the results.

 

[Galaxiom]

He is the opposite of you maybe - ignorant of the process, but perceptive of the results.

The results are meaningless without the process. And of course he is highly perceptive of the results because he starts with results he wants then asks only the questions that can be made to fit them.

Many a research attempt has been rendered worthless though not paying attention to methodology.

 

[Adam Caramon]

To sum up this whole thread..

Many of those who are religious feel that life starts at conception, thus abortion is wrong no matter what. Some will make exceptions in the case of ra** or if the mother's life is in danger, but they don't explain why it is okay to murder (their words) the fetus in these circumstances.

Religious people feel that their religion should be taken seriously and have as much or more influence in these matters as science does. Many of them feel that because their religion says that abortion is wrong (or at least, their religious group's interpretation says so), that they have a duty to stop all women from having abortions.

Non-religious people defer these decisions to medical experts, such as physicians, and the legal system, which says that under certain circumstances, abortion is allowed.

Furthermore, non-religious people really resent religious group's influence upon this process, and seek to reduce and ultimately remove all such influence. They may even insult or belittle religious people in debates when religious people try to use their religion as evidence.

That about sum it up?

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

To sum up this whole thread..

Many of those who are religious feel that life starts at conception, thus abortion is wrong no matter what. Some will make exceptions in the case of ra** or if the mother's life is in danger, but they don't explain why it is okay to murder (their words) the fetus in these circumstances.

Religious people feel that their religion should be taken seriously and have as much or more influence in these matters as science does. Many of them feel that because their religion says that abortion is wrong (or at least, their religious group's interpretation says so), that they have a duty to stop all women from having abortions.

Non-religious people defer these decisions to medical experts, such as physicians, and the legal system, which says that under certain circumstances, abortion is allowed.

Furthermore, non-religious people really resent religious group's influence upon this process, and seek to reduce and ultimately remove all such influence. They may even insult or belittle religious people in debates when religious people try to use their religion as evidence.

That about sum it up?

Its sums you up quite nicely.

 

[Alc]

Its sums you up quite nicely.

I thought it was pretty accurate and didn't resort to insults.
Which part(s) did you feel he got wrong?