NoGodBlog.com

And so it begins...

By the way, off topic but inline with Dave's comment regarding keeping religion out of government, here is a good one for all of us:

http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/030206ccklrKmovreligionbill.7d361c3f.html

HMDK,
Is Denmark a nice place to live?

What about New Zealand, HeatheNZ?

And I've been reading and blogging about Orwell's masterpiece 1984. In 1984 the control of the people is accomplished by the government

In the US it' looking more and more like control will be via government and religion which will eventually lead to a theocracy so this move makes perfect sense...

A Rational Being

I agree with Dave.

The abortion issue is not about abortion, but rather about religious people forcing other people to obey the religious way of life. Gay rights, death with dignity, school prayer -- all the same thing.

That is exactly the point I always try to make to theists. No one is ever going to agree across the board on polarizing issues such as these, but no one really HAS to agree, do they? As long as the people who want to have abortions still have the freedom to have them if they wish, the people who are against it don't have to have them. Same with death with dignity, gay marriage, etc. I simply do not understand their need to micro-manage the lives of other people based upon their religious beliefs.

What we have to work on is getting that point across to the general public. We have been unsuccessful in getting these people to understand that what they are asking for ultimately is a theocracy based upon Judeo-Christian belief, and I don't think they realize that even they don't really want that! It seems as if they are unable to look past their emotions on the issue at hand and see the big picture.

This is certainly troubling, but not a national disaster.

This law does have an exception if the life of the mother is at risk, so if it makes it to the Supreme Court it stands a better chance of being allowed than a complete ban would.

But I also think that Justices Thomas, Alito and Roberts are not the rightwing ideolouges they are portrayed to be.

While certainly conservative, Thomas has been very vocal in suporting individual rights, more soe than most of the 9. His dissent in the medical marijuana case is great reading.

Roberts and Alito are still unknowns, though certainly more likely to vote to support this ban.

While Alitos recent letter is somewhat troubling, it could also be read as being similar to the thank-you letter your parents make you write to your aunt for that hideous sweater she got you for a birthday present.

Roberts is still somewhat of a cypher, though he does make me nervous. We need to see him in action more to get a better read on him.

Even if this is upheld, this is a different world than pre-roe days, when abortion rights were universally banned in all states. I doubt many states would pass a complete ban, and states like Ca, NJ, NY, WI, etc, are not likely to impose anything more restrictive than they have now.

While definitely difficult for those involved, I think you will see a lot of 'state-line clinics' opened up in neighboring states, followed by a gradual reversal of these bans, though that reversal may take decades to occur.

I also totally agree. I also believe the only ones making it an issue are the religious fundies. I also believe that it is only an "I am holier than thou" action.

DVanWechel,

NZ is a great place to live. I'm very very glad I have the option to go live there any time I like. I can escape the theocracy in a matter of hours - provided they don't ban atheists from flying :)

Gotta love conspiracy theories.

Maybe I'll be lucky enough to get out before they begin rounding up atheists and placing them in "conversion camps" : )

I'm an atheist who is totally in support of a woman's right to choose but I call abortion what it is: murder. The taking of a human life or at least, a potential life, is murder no matter how you spin it but this term is not good for marketing the pro-choice platform. Isn't it better to have an abortion in the first trimester when the nervouse system is not developed enough to register pain then to condem an unwanted child to a life of misery, poverty, and neglect? what about the burden it places on the parents and society as well?
If the pro-lifer's are so concerned with reducing the number of abortions then why not encourage realistic sex education? By supporting abstinence only sex education in public schools they are witholding useful information that could very well bring the number of unwanted pregnancies down but instead the religious folks want to live in a jesus fantasy land where no one has sex outside of heterosexual marriage. Pull your heads out of the sand and accept that humans are sexual beings and teenagers are going to have sex so why not give them the knowledge to prevent unwanted pregnancies? South Dakota needs to be ready for all of the additional welfare mothers and children that this ruling will undoubtly produce.
Bottom line for me is that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare and let's empower kids to avoid getting pregnant to begin with!
Alex.

Alex

The taking of a human life or at least, a potential life, is murder no matter how you spin it but this term

My understanding is that "murder" is the unlawful killing of a person. While abortion is legal (or at least not illegal) it would seem not to fit the definition of murder.

I totally agree with "legal, safe, and rare" and would add affordable.

I'd like to add those women guilty of spontaneous abortion, whether that was a result of conscious, genetic, or unconscious decisions to the crimes against fetuses. Manslaughter for everyone.

Likewise, total reproductive system dominancy must happen. No pregnant women drinking, smoking, driving, crossing the street, painting, drinking caffeine, being fat, not taking their vitamins, having a poor diet, being genetically defective, et cetera, as this all can cause an abortion as well. They all need imprisoned.

I am of course being sarcastic, but hopefully I have pointed out the false dichotomy.

I will become an anti-abortionist when it becomes illegal to kill any other species for food, convenience, sport, or health reasons.
We are just animals, IMO.
Who the F**K do we think we are?

The only exception to this new ban is to save the mother's life.

If the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, well it's the mother's fault and she has to give birth to the offspring of a monster.

I agree with Alex. I think realistic education will reduce unwanted pregnancies and reduce the need for abortions.

And an abortion, that I support even though I'm not fond of it, is far better then adding another neglected child to the statistics.

They do not call it Pro-CHOICE for nothing. Pregnant woman who do not want to have a baby should not be forced to have one against their wishes, they do not want to take care of a baby! Soem even end up hating their baby. It's better to let women who know they won't or can't take care of their baby to end the pregnancy.

Hey Dave, this is off-topic, but could you open a thread on the Church burnings again. It appears that the people resposible might have been caught. (Or so says CNN)

And abortion, I have something to say about that, copied and pasted from Biblioblography because I'm lazy-

I guess I'm pro-let-let-all-the-women-in-america-decide-whether-or-not-they-want-to-be-pro-life-or-choice-because-I'm-a-guy-and-I-don't-have-to-deal-with-the-emotions-that-might-come-with-either-decision.

Okay, that's where I stand. BUT, if those guys were standing in the way of my non-existent girlfriend who had made the choice, then there wouldn't be one left standing after I was done with them. ^_~

I still think that abortion is murder but it is justifiable murder as long as it is done within certain limitations (not in the last trimester unless there is danger to the mother). The way I see it some people use abortion as a type of birth control and I would like to see more effort go into realistic sex education and more access to birth control. There are currently more than 6 billion people on this planet and without birth control and on demand abortion who knows how many more unwanted children would be living in abject poverty? Abortion is often the more compassionate choice. South Dakota is going to empower the RR and enbolden their efforts to overturn Roe v Wade on the federal level. If they succed we could see other freedoms that we currently enjoy also disappear.
Alex

alex, how did you get to the conclusion that it is murder?

Alex,

Comment from: spanders [Member] · Edit
alex, how did you get to the conclusion that it is murder?

I'm curious about that too. Do you disagree that the definition of murder depends on the act being unlawful?

Abortion might be called many things, but it seems epistimologically inaccurate to call it murder (currently).

Were you a theist I might suggest that you were invoking biblical law, but you don't get that break :)

Biblical law does not come into it HeatheNZ.
Nowhere in that load of crap "they" call a holy book does it say that an unborn child is a real person. It, in fact states that a woman, always with women, can be stoned to death, even when eight months or more, pregnant.
Now I call that sadistic,immoral and ...... oh thats right, its christian.

jaraw, interesting… where is that found?

New someone would ask.
Looking for it now.

The problem I have with this whole thing is that most people have lost site of the real issue, the separation of church and state.

Wow Dave...what a stretch. Of course what else would an atheist attempt to blame in on?

No, the so called "Pro-choice" crowd lost sight 33 years ago. One never considers the life of the child.

Insteat they changed the terminology to "fetus" because the government taught population wouldn't know it's latin for "developing human".
Words are powerful. The prochoice crowd is anything but prochoice. That's why over the last few years they now tout "Reproductive Rights".

It's amazing that those that claim to be "enlightened" can off a baby with no problem.

Now, if the Catholic church was promoting abortion I'm sure you'd be on the other side of the issue.

Someone asked if Holland is a nice place to live. A few weeks ago there was an article about FORCED abortions on black minorites being proposed there. So lets see. They off the senior citizens when they've outlived their usefulness. And now they are debating forcing a certain part of their population to have abortions. What a great place to live!

And speaking of past topics. I told you it was an epidemic...

In fact, a recent, federally funded study concludes the problem of school teachers molesting students dwarfs in magnitude the clergy sex-abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49049

OK Dave...how about being so concerned about kids in the public schools?

I'll also be interested to see how my "fellow Christian" Spanders responds to this thread...

Jaraw,

Thanks for the correction. I was being facitious - but did not realise I was also talking through a hle in my .... head. :)

phreedm,
I didn't know you cared :-). Why are you interested in my opinion? Why do you put quotations around fellow christian? I don't agree with your politics, but it's not mine to question your faith. Do you question mine?

Not found the quote I wanted but here are a few others. Been ages since I read the book.

Another more direct abortion example in the Sanhedrin is a discussion of what to do with a pregnant women who has been sentenced to death. They conclude she should be beat on the stomach prior to the execution; thereby preventing her from going into labor. It makes no difference how far along she is, the fetus dies with the mother. "I cite this Halacha because it puts the status of the fetus into a Halachic perspective. Even if it could be viable it has no rights unto itself." - Norman Slurzberg

Then there is,

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Exodus 21:22-25

so no sympathy for the woman, only compo for the husband. Nice.

Lastly,

Matthew 26:24, suggests that it would have been better if Judas had not been born! Note the word is "BORN", not "conceived". The only way to have prevented Judas from being born would have been an abortion.

I'm sure there are many others.

Jaraw,
I think this is what you're looking for:
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

Thanks Spanders.
Have so many athiest sites I couldnt find him. But it is Brian Elroy McKinleys site I first read about the travesty the xtians are making of their "good book". Twisting everything the same as ever to make a buck.

Forgot to add


Shame on them.

spanders

I'll also be interested to see how my "fellow Christian" Spanders responds to this thread...

Tolerance check on aisle 9!!!!!

phreedm thinks you're his "fellow" Christian? or...excuse me...he's YOUR fellow?

As r4d is wont to say, AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

phreedumb,

'Now, if the Catholic church was promoting abortion I'm sure you'd be on the other side of the issue.'

This is just plain stupid. Atheists don't disagree with EVERY stance of the Catholic church which is what you infer here. Boy, you are an idiot.

jaraw,
no problem.

Twisting everything the same as ever to make a buck.

I think it would be a mistake to think of it a twisting the bible to make a buck. It ranges wildly why we as christians interpret the bible the way we do. Phreedm and I read the same book and suspect come up with different answers. I think both of us do it in an honest attempt to gain understanding, but they are different "twists" on the bible based on our different backgrounds and different needs. I'll grant you, some people do it to make a buck, others to gain power, but others do it for altruistic reasons. I don't like to assume people's intentions. I prefer to look at their actions.

It's not about separation it's about sucking up to god and putting women in a subservient status. Having the right to choose is mostly a womens issue but if abortion is outlawed it will limit everyone's freedom if it stands (RvW) it will foster freedom. The choice is if you can respect the Bill of Rights and want freedom or if you want to use the Bill of Rights as a tool to score points with a god and limit freedom.

Pro lifers don't care about any Bill of Rights only their religion and scoring points with the Almighty.

*off topic*

http://www.standwithus.com/shahada.asp?style=blue

Andrew Sullivan posted this and said watch and weep.

I did

'Now, if the Catholic church was promoting abortion I'm sure you'd be on the other side of the issue.'


phreedm, no one here is "promoting" abortion. I'm sure most people here share my opinion that it should not have to happen but sometimes, it's for the best.

1-r_ape
2-1ncest
3-a future mom who doesn't want to be one for her own reasons. Won't or can't take care of a child.


Yes, I know that some kids born of a rape turned out to be important men, can't remember who, but you shouldn't have to force a woman to see the face of her tortionist and remember her pain everytime she looks at the face of her baby.

Its a shame Spanders, that your efforts are directed through a system of repression, when it could be used to help all mankind, sorry Ladies.
Most xtian aims are too transparently self seeking to be taken seriously, which is why I dumped it all a few years ago.
And no, it wasnt easy. I still had that feeling of someone looking over my shoulder for a time. But, eventually it lifted and has left me with a feeling of freedom I never knew was possible. Best of all, I could see, with a clarity I never had with religion, just how great this life is and how, not only me and mine, but everyone on planet earth, should share in its happiness and contentment.
Instead we have control freaks telling us what we should believe and do. When they dont believe its core beliefs themselves!
Sorry, but until the clan in control of your country, or mine, or any other country, decide to give all they have away to please god, I will never believe a word they say.

shouldn't one's efforts be judged based on the results of those efforts? If I were to do something, say build a charity website that is not religious benefitting victims of hurricanes regardless of religion, race or any other qualifier… are those wasted efforts because of a worldview I have? Is that effort not equally valid if an atheist or a theist made that effort?

I think the issue is people being control freaks… no that they're christians. Rick Santorum gives me the willies, but it's because he decided that everyone has to live according to his myopic world view. Now, that world view is based on his religion and that's where I make the connection you are talking about. I've said it before, christians are not a monolithic group. There is a tremendous struggle happening about this attempt to regulate morality. Some of us ain't buyin' it.

Phreedm said:
Someone asked if Holland is a nice place to live.

Phreedm -
Someone asked if DENMARK was a nice place to live. Denmark is not the same place as Holland - and in fact, there is NO country named Holland - it is now called the Netherlands.

I always find it interesting that Pro-Lifers consider the fetus (or embryo, or fertilized egg) to be equal to a baby - and they consider abortion to be murder. However, most of them think abortion is acceptable to save the mother's life - and a lot of them think it's okay in the case of rape or incest.

If the fetus is REALLY equal to a baby, wouldn't you be obligated to let it live - no matter what? It's not the baby's fault its mother got raped. And if the mother's life is in danger, well shouldn't you insist that the pregnancy proceed anyway? Sure, try to save the mother, but why kill one "person" to save another?

I'm definitely pro-choice, but I think that abortion clinics need better regulation. I also think abortions need to be done early in the pregnancy. Carl Sagan wrote about this - suggesting that abortions be performed before brain activity begins (in other words, in the first trimester).

I'm know that most hard-core pro-lifers are religious conservatives who want to control women - but I also think there are people who are pro-life because they truly believe that abortion is wrong - is murder.

I think this is really a tough subject. I feel like most of you do - it's such a personal decision - it should be up to the woman to decide and keep the gov't out of it.

Interesting statistics from the Center for Disease Control. The rate of abortions increased from 1970 to a high in 1990 - and have steadily declined since then.

The group with the highest percentage of abortions? Those less than 15 years old. Guess that "abstinence only" policy is really working, huh?

Here's the link:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm#tab1

Tis a pity there is not a majority in the church like yourself Spanders. I thought I was helping though and, looking back, I now realise that most donations I made went to support a building that, whilst old and pretty, did nothing to help poor people or fight for the rights of women.
Mind, it is always twenty twenty vision looking backwards. I wish I had never bothered but still I wish you well.

jaraw,
I think it depends on the church. I won't go into detail, but we do try to help poor people, fight for rights of women and gays and les-bians and do environmental activities. We have our Neuese River clean up coming up in two weeks. I agree, though, that some seem to be more clear about their visions than others. And, of course, I wish you well! Hopefully, we both can and will do well.

Pixel

I think that abortion clinics need better regulation.

Can you elaborate on this?

*off topic* this looks very good…
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670034827/sr=8-1/qid=1141863752/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-0283620-3647304?%5Fencoding=UTF8

boy o boy,
wouldn't be a great post without phreedm taking a shot a public schools again...

here is my suggestion, phreedm:

GET OFF YOUR ASS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! STOP ANNOYING US ON HERE WITH YOUR USELESS BANTER AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.

now, back to the thread....

i was a child who bounced back and forth on this isssue growing up...i was raised in the catholic church. then, in my private high school (catholic), i was asked to give a speech on a controversial topic. i chose abortion. yet, i forgot to listen in church for the last 13 years and i said that it should be legal in cases of incest, rape, and harm to the mother...i was stopped short in my speech and told to sit down by my religion teacher. when i received a zero on the assignment, i went crazy. but, "because i went against the views of the church," i was wrong...

from that day, i have studied the issue in great detail. i consider myself pro-choice, but i do not like the process of aborting fetuses. but, i also want women to make their own choices, and not have the government run their lives. yet, we pro-choice supporters are made out by the right as die hard pro-abortioners, when that is not always the case. the religious right has done a great job at clouding the issue. i agree with dave, we need to stick together and voice our opinion and let small minded people like phreedm realize that we are not baby killers.

alex:

I'm an atheist who is totally in support of a woman's right to choose but I call abortion what it is: murder.

I'm somewhat w/you Alex.
I don't know if I'd qualify it w/that particular word.
I'm pro-choice. But what saddens me is that it's the potential, the blossoming cut short, all those things that could've been, but will not be. I consider it a necessary evil.
I can only hope someday that this practice will be spoken of only in the history books.
Here's to that day: let us hope it comes soon.

I know that at this age, I don't have much say in this topic, but I will be damned if I am to let the future America be a country where the rights of the Godless, the rights of homosexuals, and last, but most certainly not least, the rights of women are trumped upon and thrown into the corner. Abortion. In this room, there are two nine-hundred pound elephants in the room (that must be one hell of a legislative meeting), but the only one that is getting any attention is the one named Fetal Rights. Why is this? My personal belief is that it is because the elephant named Religous Influence, is an elephant that the Religious Right despises with a purple passion because it is always with them when they make a law, so this elephant is hidden under a tarp, swept under the rug, so to speak. I believe abortion should be legalized, we need better sex education (as a student who has experienced the abstinence program, I know of how it has failed). I think that we should show videos of abortions. In my school we do show images of the outer reproductive organs and/or mouth of people who have certain sexually transmitted diseases. This has proven to be very effective in getting children to shy away from sexual activity.

-Jérôme

Jérôme:

In my school we do show images of the outer reproductive organs and/or mouth of people who have certain sexually transmitted diseases.

While that sounds like a good idea, & it would work for the general populace, I dunno.
Lemmee toss a personal anectdote:
I'm sure anyone who drives on this blog remembers that film they watched in 'Driver's Ed'. Highways of Death, or some such thing.
I was so horrified after watching that thing, that guess what?
I didn't get my drivers license till I was 31.
My folks helped me get a car in my teens, it just sat out in front of the house. Drove my dad batsh*t. Couldn't understand my lack of drive (pun intended).
Pretty much my attitude was, 'No way in HELL am I going to be responsible for hurting/killing someone.'
Maybe I'm just overly sensitive, or somethin'.
Just a thought.

I'm 17 and in no position to be talking about sexual maturity, but I am in a position to say this:

If I want to have sex, I'm going to. An abstinence program telling me that sex is evil is not going to stop me. A video of an abortion or a slide-show of STD victims will definitely make me tread carefully, however.

My point: reality is a much more poignant method than lying.

Reluctant
Was that the video where they had the slow motion impact of chest on steering wheel in an accident?
"At .5 seconds, the outer chest makes contact with the steering wheel.
By .3 seconds the steering wheel has cut through the chest wall and begins to collapse the lungs..."

The timing isn't quoted right, but that's the idea. I remember that better than any sex ed video.


Deadly, Jerome, et al,

If I want to have sex, I'm going to.

We know you're going to. Just be safe. Know about STDs. Know about birth control. Know your partner. Cos if you don't know your partner, you're not gonna be sure about STD's and birth control. Oh, and be ready to step up when the shit hits the fan.
Course, not my place to be telling you this. I'm just sayin'...in case no one else in your life is.

karen, the mother, comes out!

but, i totally agree...i am gaining a 15 year old step daughter when i get married in june...i worry about her everyday...her mother is undecided on the abortion issue...she was pro-choice until she became pregnant at 19...she didn't quit and she had a great daughter, but it was one hell of a struggle. but, i don't think she wants her daughter to go through the same struggles (only if it was not her choice to get pregnant, i.e...rape, etc.)

a video would be shocking, but i work in a public school...people may die if that is shown...i am not kidding...we were sued 6 years ago for trying to establish a dress code.

podry
If your stepdaughter becomes pregnant, isn't it more of a matter whether SHE's pro-choice rather than her mom or you? Are you saying that her mom would be willing to support an abortion even though she herself decided against one?

about dress codes-everyone should just wear black white and gold ;)

karen:

Was that the video where they had the slow motion impact of chest on steering wheel in an accident?

No, I recall older black gentlemen getting in a crash, & scraping their brains off the cement.
That's the only 1 that comes to mind. Jérôme has a great idea, I'm only pointing out the possibilities of scarring someone.
Devil's advocate, & all that.

Another problem is people's religious beliefs...I know this has been touched on but we srayed away. In Geography class, we watched a movie called "The People Bomb" or something of the sort involving people and bomb. People would say how contraceptives are banned in their countries, or "Allah blessed us with this pregnancy so we should honor his decision to bring another into the world [even if the mother dies, the child forces the family into poverty, ad infinitum]."

-Jérôme

karen:
yes, you have a point. but, this is the mind of a 15 year old girl who is afraid to take showers in the house without someone home. is she mentally prepared for this decision? i don't know. but, it is her decision. it his her body...it is her life. yet, if the ruling is changed, she loses all of that...she will have to do it illegally...and i don't like that...

hell, yeah...all should wear the "true" colors of the blue collar "peoples" champions!

Also, we have to realize, with the overpopulation of both the country and the planet, maybe, scaring (yes, scaring not scarring) them would be best, and this is just a maybe.

-Jérôme

Infinite population growth in a finite environment is as harmful to the fetus as RU486.

podry
She's certainly not mature/secure enough to be having consensual sex, is she?
But you say you worry about her. Is this (do you suppose, since I gather you've not had children previously) normal parental anxiety over a teenager/ Or does she give you some cause to worry about this subject?
Or is it because of her insecurity?

yet, if the ruling is changed, she loses all of that...she will have to do it illegally.

Yeah. That just makes me want to spit railroad spikes! I stand by what I said on the original abortion thread: If men had the babies, this would NOT EVEN be an issue.

karen:
honestly, i don't worry so much about her. she is a good girl. but, it is the influence of her slutty friends. my step daughter is one of the last girls in her sophomore class to have not had sex yet. mind you, these girls were all my students at one time or another. society has changed so much...it kills me. she has talked openly to her mother about having sex. her mother and i do whatever we can to stay around as much as possible...she really never has any free time with her boyfriend. i think her mother is resigned to the fact that she will eventually have sex, whether we want it or not...but, if we can keep her from doing this for as long as possible, we will...
talk about birth control!

sometimes i despise our government for our freedom...weird, huh?

Meso, yea, the NoGod hath smiled upon thee and granted thy prayers...

podry
My friend (a teacher)intercepted a note between 2 6th grade girls in her class last week. One girl was telling the other the details of her first sexual experience over the weekend.

The parents of the girls had to come in and read the note to get the girls out of In-School-Suspension. One of the parents was a preacher. I think it was the parent of the deflowered girl. He was clueless. The other mother's eyes about popped out of her head and fell on the desk as she was reading the note.

At least your bride-to-be is communicative with her daughter. There will come a time when you can't always be with her to chaperone. I heartily recommend the Pill. (jcc, don't have a heart attack!) And make sure she knows about STDS. Maybe that'll scare her into waiting, but when you're at the mercy of your hormones, it's rough.

AMEN!

With the safe and effective birth control and std preventive methods that are available to us all there is NO reason for an unwanted pregnancy. Some small % will get prgnant but that is minor compared to the good that comes from proper education. I assume that every 16 year old IS having sex and that they need to be taught how to stay safe and prevent getting pregnant. With proper educaion and effective training abortion would become obsolete. The fact is however that education is often in the hands of people with an agenda that does not include having sex at all. Think GUILT. I would guess that teens who are afraid of sex are afraid because of some irrational fears that they have been taught. There is also more about this over at god is 4 suckers.
Karen
I love your post on the other thread about two birds. I could not keep the dialog going it just was too weird.

I was a teen not long ago.

The fact is, your children won't be kids forever. They won't stay virgins forever. They WILL have sex, sooner or later. As a parent it is your responsability to teach them about unwanted pregnancies and STDS prevention.

The state has to do it because too many parents won't.

Im a vegan, which means i dont eat any meat or dairy products,(yes! its true you can live without killing anything!) as i belive that we have no right to effect the lives of other species on this planet. As an atheist, i am also completely against religion having any control over our rights. I think that when people make these bold statements like "Life is sacred" whilst tucking into a beef burger - well i think you can see the hypocrisy. Why is it murder when you kill a human animal, but not when its a non human animal? religion. Religion created the divide. Religion is the sole reason why non human animals suffer. I understand that most christians are dead against accepting they are nothing more than a sub species of ape, but come on?! ignorance is the one true quality of religion. If abortion is banned in america, the population will increase, choking our world. We will be responsible for the destruction of this planet, and whose fault will it be? religion. Religion is the one true evil on this planet, an evil that will destroy our world.

I haven't noticed the thread picking up the political basis for thhis legislation. Mississippi has an identical bill pending.

Why now?

With the addition of Alito we have five (5) very conservative Roman Catholics on the SCT bench.

What controls our law?

Is it Stare Decisis or is it Roman dogma?

FWIW STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

I'm sure this has been noted on this thread (didn't read the whole thing) but while it may make exceptions if there is danger to the mother, it does not make exceptions for cases of rape OR incest.

These people are sick.

" but while it may make exceptions if there is danger to the mother, it does not make exceptions for cases of rape OR incest.

These people are sick."

Makes one wonder WHY?!?
Sick? Oh, yes.
Not only sick, but almost pitiable in their brainwashed delusions.
The people who mob and bomb abortion clinics are the christian equivalent of islamic suicide-bombers.
It is fanaticism... pure and simple.
And yet I feel for them... they feel their sense of "reality" slipping away and so resort to insane measures.
I wish there was a cure for that behaviour.

god_destroyer:

i like you point...i have never thought about it that way. hopefully, i have discovered a reason supporting my meat eating life style...yet, i do respect your vegan lifestyle...it is truly amazing to me.
keep up the good work...

god_destroyer

Im a vegan, which means i dont eat any meat or dairy products,(yes! its true you can live without killing anything!) as i belive that we have no right to effect the lives of other species on this planet.

First, I fully support your right to live whatever peaceful lifestyle you choose, sane or silly.

Question: How is consuming Dairy equated with killing anything?

If Vegans do not consume dairy, do they breast feed thier children?

If not, how do you feed your children, since formula contains so many artificial ingredients, not to mention dairy products, that it would seem to violate the vegan philosophy. I would think you will eventually go the way of the shakers, if so.

god_destroyer,

Do you consider killing plants to be equally as offensive as killing animals?
You probably live in a house built of wood. A tree had to give its life for this to occur (most homes contain wood products). Therefore, your home is probably made of dead tree skeletons (dead because you killed them). Are you able to make a distinction between taking the life of a tree (plant) and taking the life of an animal? Do you think the tree willingly gave its life so you can live in a house? Did it have a choice? The tree doesn't have pleading eyes filled with tears or a trembling voice to air its feelings. It has no face in which you can observe anguish. So, have you assumed it has no feelings? Can it comtemplate or feel the result of tree farming? Consider these questions and give YOURSELF an hypocrisy check.
We have had our way with the environment for a good while. If the forces of the universe allow us time, there will be a reckoning for this.

Wow... didn't take long for THIS thread to go awry... in a somewhat unexpected way.
Here's my dime:
I'll eat you all... in a very non-sexual way, if you can't agree to get along.

karen:
do you realize how many notes i find like that every week...i teach 8th graders...i have read some of the most elaborate notes that you could ever imagine, and yet most parents in my school corp. are not upset or disgusted. in fact, some even say "so what" to the letters...

i think the problems start at home without sound advice from parents...can't wait till phreedm reads that. by the way, has anyone else noticed that he has turned into an even more drive bying ...

oopps, the bell just rang

with my wife being vegetarian and almost vegan (no leather clothing, no down clothing, no products with animal testing and so on) I know a little bit about this issue. No food is bloodless. Even harvesting plants will cause some loss of life. Boiling water may kill life on a microscopic level. I think the point is to do the least damage possible. If you eat meat (like I occassionally do) try to research where it comes from before putting it in your mouth. If you buy chicken or eggs, consider buying cage free. Poor treatment of animals also has consequences in diseases that are spread throughout the world. The hormones we give them and the way we crowd them together encourages vicious mutations of diseases that are extremely virulent. Additionally, it takes less resources to produce plants than it does livestock. If humans were to eat plants only, there would be less of a strain on the environment. Make no mistake... I eat meat. I think the idea is to be considerate of what we're consuming and its impact.

Spanders... I'm with ya.
Here in the DK we've got a good selection of free-range/ecological choices, and I choose those.
But I'll never give up meat.
It's impossible.
I love it, and it is built into our DNA.

I really don't see how the Abortion issue has anything to do with the separation of church and state. I believe that statement was a major stretch of the imagination.

As for whether it is right or wrong, then I guess that depends on how you view the world. I have been reading this blog for a while now and I have seen several examples of the same type of hate, lack of tolerance, and faith in the belief that you are right that is being attributed to Christians, only in reverse. It would seem that these are only wrong in your eyes when they are directed toward atheists, but not the other way around.

However, whether you want to accept it or not, there is wrong and there is right. I believe it is inherent in humans to know the difference. We often find reasons to distort the truth to make it "feel" more comfortable, but just because we "feel" it is right or wrong doesn't make it true. Our laws are changing every day, so what was considered wrong years ago may now be considered acceptable. Does that change the facts of whether it is right or wrong? I don't think so.

So it comes to this; do I think abortion is wrong? Yes! Would you consider it wrong if the parents concluded, when the child is 3 years old, that they just can't financially take care of the child, so they decide to have an abortion on the 3 year old? If that is wrong in your eyes, then why is it different when the child is a fetus? Yes, there will always be situations, like rape or a threat to the mother's life where this does not "easily" fit into a pre-defined mold. I honestly don't know what my decision would be in that situation and I hope I never have to find out, but I certainly know that I would have to consider the fact that the fetus is a living being and deserves the right to live.

I'm sure that there will be a great deal of rhetoric to my comments and they likely will be completely shredded, but no matter to me. I did not post this for you to agree with me.

Before I stop, however, I do want you to be certain of the fact that you have probably already guessed; Yes, I am a Christian! I am sure that my view is colored by that position, but that position teaches me to love all of God's children, atheists included. I read what you have to say, even though I don’t agree with it and I will continue to pray for you whether this gets posted or not.

fstopusa,

Welcome out of the lurking closet. Nice to know there is still an unknown number of people who read, but don't join in. May I ask why you were lurking only, and what persuaded you to 'jump in'? Just curious.

However, whether you want to accept it or not, there is wrong and there is right. I believe it is inherent in humans to know the difference. We often find reasons to distort the truth to make it "feel" more comfortable, but just because we "feel" it is right or wrong doesn't make it true. Our laws are changing every day, so what was considered wrong years ago may now be considered acceptable. Does that change the facts of whether it is right or wrong? I don't think so.

This is a common thread that is talked over often. I do find it pretty close-minded that you start by dismissing any counter opinion before it is even presented. There are some strong arguments against your objective opinion that you would need to address before making any traction in this group. If you are interested in debate, then bring it on. if you are interested in stating your opinion as unsubstantiated fact, then it's a fairly worthless exercise.

For the record, different people in different societies in different times ahve different values and interpretation of right and wrong. Who is in a position to judge which is/was objectively 'correct'. We always see things, to some extent, through the lens of our own social perspective.

Your call.

It is a matter of semantics but yeah I do consider any killing to be murder but there are many instances of justifiable murder. Everytime we boil a pot of water we are killing untold microbes. Everytime we drive our car and insects or a deer smash into our windshield it is murder. Whenever an abortion is performed it is murder. I consider all of these acceptable murder however.
I mean if it is just a matter of definition then why do we now consider the deliberate killing of American Indians or Australian Aboriginals murder even though at one time it was not only legal but came with official government approval?
Again it's just a matter of wording and my definition might not be everyones and I think that the recent South Dakota ruling sets a dangerous precedent.
Alex.

fstopusa

Oh, how tempted I am to play with your name. But I'll put on my "plays well with others" shirt for a while.

No one ever carried a 3 yr. old child in utero. Well, if they did, it wasn't viable.
A fetus is not yet a human.
If you are perhaps willing to kill one to save the mother's life, or perhaps in the cases of incest and rape, what's the difference to you? The qualities of the fetus do not change by circumstance.

Alex,

Interesting point about the killing of Aborinal peoples now being called murder. It sounds like revisionism on the part of critics. I guess the same logic could be applied to the victims of the holocaust. Plainly their deaths were legal under the 3rd reich - so according to my literalism should not be described as murder. Not real comfortable with that.

I'd appreciate a legal or etymological viewpoint if anyone has one.

Regarding the'murder ' of microbes, insects , etc. I think the term murder applied only to the unlawful killing of people. This would be my 'out' for that criticism.

HZ

Regarding the'murder ' of microbes, insects , etc. I think the term murder applied only to the unlawful killing of people. This would be my 'out' for that criticism.

Again, only because "we" say so.
You said yourself you were fairly unimpressed with humans (paraphrase) a couple days ago.
Does elevating ourselves to the top of the food chain give us permission to kill other species and not call it murder?
What if another species showed up that was, or decided it was, a rung higher than us? Isn't that pretty much what the Third Reich did, in a race-specific way?

I subscribe to the view that an abortion constitutes the killing of a potential human being with the potential of great good or bad things. It is the potential that bothers me. If it is just a mass of cells, it is about as inane as taking out a tumor. There is nothing bad about that.
I have a problem with me having been at one point in time that mass of cells. I would not have appreciated a coat hanger at that early stage.

karen,

Again, only because "we" say so.

Language is pretty useless without a common understanding of the terminology. 'We' do not arbitrarily decide what we'd like the words we use to mean (a common theist tactic that we rail against). Rather we choose the words that best reflect our concepts and rely on a common understanding of those words, and if necessary a lexical reference, to convey our thoughts accurately. It is an imperfect process, but it works fairly well.

Brings to mind the Mad Hatter's quote about his words meaning what he decides they mean. (Wish I had a direct quote).

I am merely trying to point out that murder is not a term to bandied around lightly.

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

Definition 2 has some latitude with regard to killing lawfully and/or applied to non-human life. It is however very subjective as to how to define brutal or inhumane. Obviously I am using definiton 1 as a yardstick.

You said yourself you were fairly unimpressed with humans (paraphrase) a couple days ago.

hmmm not sure of the relevance or context, but certainly human reflect poorly in certain lights.

Does elevating ourselves to the top of the food chain give us permission to kill other species and not call it murder?

Noone is giving or getting permission. As regarding the act of killing, it depends on how you define murder. Clearly if using definition 1 above the answer is a resounding 'yes'. Using definition 2 any act of one life form killing another could be construed as murder. Personally I think doing so makes the term pretty pointless.

What if another species showed up that was, or decided it was, a rung higher than us? Isn't that pretty much what the Third Reich did, in a race-specific way?

What if they did? I'm not sure where you are going here. I am suggesting that murder is restricted to human - human unlawful killing. If the killer of victim is not human (regardless of lower or higher life form) then according to definition 1 it is not murder.

I do not know the rationale of the third reich. I suspect there were many factors involved. But yes i think they considered jews, slavs, homosexual, gypsies, and others to be sub-human. But my point was really a legal point. If it's legal, then technically it's not murder (according to def 1). I conceed that the holocaust would be a strong candidate to fall under def 2.

Another point concerns revisionism. Do we define the nature of a killing withing the context of the legal framework at the time of the killing, or within the current legal context. Depending on the answer will affects what is and might in the future be accurately labelled as murder.

As I mentioned I'm no lawyer, but I bet these questions have very specific legal answers.

fstopusa,

I really don't see how the Abortion issue has anything to do with the separation of church and state. I believe that statement was a major stretch of the imagination.

It has everything to do with it, and is by no means a "major stretch of the imagination." Dave is trying to point out that all of these issues -abortion, gay rights, school prayer, etc, - are nothing more than the Religious Right trying to force everyone to live by their particular beliefs.

No one is "pro-abortion"...we have agreed many times on previous threads that it is a tragic thing, but a necessary evil, as reluctant atheist pointed out. I abhor the thought of abortion but I firmly support a woman's right to choose for herself. It is no one's business but hers. Abortion should remain safe, legal, and hopefully very rare, as someone pointed out earlier.

And of course separation of church and state is the crux of the matter. These people, mostly Christians, who think they have some corner on morality and "living right" granted by their invisible god and their ancient holy book, are not satisfied to live their own lives by these rules. They feel they must force everyone ELSE to live by them as well, whether we want to or not. If they would mind their own business, I would mind mine.

Do you really want the U.S. to have the potential to become like Afghanistan under the Taliban and have "morality police" watching everything we do? Hauling people off for stoning, beheading, or whatever punishment was meted out for their particular offense against Allah?

You might think that sounds extreme, that it would never come to that - and I'm not saying it ever would, but the Afghan people didn't think it would ever get that bad, either, and I'm a firm believer in one of my granddad's old adages "if you give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile".

Religion cannot be allowed to influence the government of this country any more than it already has. It is entirely too dangerous.

HMDK

I'll eat you all...

Spoken like a true carnivore and predator. If you go into a feeding frenzy, there will be a big mess to clean up in the room. Start with Phreedumb and jcc and perhaps your appetite will be satisfied before you deal with the rest of us.
BTW, do you give the aquatic ape theory credit for your hairless (almost) condition? I do.

Be glad you don't live there - they don't have any fun. Too many rules.

I too, am a vegetarian, but I drink milk and eat eggs. Also, I haven't thrown out my leather jacket or wallet. I figure it would be more wasteful to throw away a perfectly good wallet and jacket, than to simply keep using them.

The reason I still eat eggs and consume milk is because sometimes that's all there is, and you go with what you have. I've been pretty fortunate in that I haven't been forced by necessity to eat meat yet.

Why do I do it? Because I don't want to hurt anything. I want to live my life without inflicting suffering on people and animals. I realise the eating only plants still causes some suffering, but if I can ease the suffering I cause even just a little by not eating meat, then I want to do that.

On abortion, I'm terminally on the fence. One the one hand, I think life is precious, and should not be squandered without thought. On the other, I see how being forced to have a child of rape or incest would make both mother and child miserable. But, really, the child never asked to be born, and isn't respnsible for the sins of the father.

Then again state-run childrens' homes can be miserable places, where the child can be abused and tormented.

So the only answer I can come up with, is to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare, while putting empasis on social programs like adoption, sex education, and making it easy for a child who is being sexually abused to get help.

I personally can't claim impartiality, because the doctor told my mother to abort me. Though she was is pro-life, she didn't. I was born with cerebral palsey, and as a result, I walk very strangely. (Sort of like Big-foot in that fake old 8mm video? Know what I mean?) How many others were like me, but never got a chance?

On a side note, my mom told me a story that she reembers from the late 50's early 60's, where a couple she babysat for had a baby that died in utero, and the doctor who's care the woman was under refused to grant and abortion and made her wait several months till she miscarried it naturally. The mental strain of it nearly drove the woman mad.

HMDK: There is an excellent Phredummy recipe thanks to that classic tome: Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe. Based upon the real story of Alexander Selkirk who was washed up off the west coast of South America in the 1700s. This is a time-tested method of serving men.

Classic Preparation of: Long Pig.

Take one human (I hope Phredummy fits this category) gut, bleed and remove hair with boiling water wash. Place on spit and roast over burning faggots. Serves several.

Please provide files for the sharpening of your fellow cannibals’ teeth - it is considered poor etiquette to slip up by omitting this traditional dental tool at the place setting.

Modern Preparation of: Long Pig.

Take one human gut, bleed and remove hair with boiling water wash. Pack cavity with Uncle Ben’s converted Rice and place on spit and roast over burning faggots. Baste with your favorite BBQ sauce. Serves several.

Tex-Mex Preparation of: Long Pig.

Take one human gut, bleed and remove hair with boiling water wash. Place in large pot with ~ 20 lbs of lard (adjust according to the fat content of the particular long pig) 15 gallons of water, a bushel of onions, coarsely chopped, green chile peppers and toss in potato chunks as meat separates from the bone. Serve with tortillas and pico de gallo – serves an entire village.

"HOW TO SERVE... MAN".

*LMAO*.

Tomwright & Reduxtian:
regarding your questions for God_Destroyer-
These are just ridiculous hyperbolic accusations and straw men against veganism. Seriously. The principle behind veganism is simply not to use animal products. Breastfeeding is fine because it comes from the the mother. The point is to respect the dignity and space of other animal species, especially sentient ones. God-destroyer said 'other species' but I am sure it was in reference to animals, not plants. Give em a little credit.

Tomwright- if you really didnt know about the dairy thing, and were just going by the wording of the post, its understandable. Clearly, that is not what GD was implying.

Redux- I think most vegans have considered this, as silly as it is, but it is not a tenant (if a diet has tenets...cuz vegan is not a religion so stop treating it like one). Animal products are unsafe, unsanitary, unhealthy (maybe you disagree) and their cultivatiuon is at this point unsustainable. This doesnt mean that vegans want to see all plants consumed and demolished without regard. It just means that it is much easier to sustainably farm plants. Most vegans also only eat organic produce.

The whole idea is that certain choices are perhaps cruel, unhealthy and unsustainable. Vegans are making a choice based sometimes on ethics, sometimes on economics, sometimes personal abjection...whatever. I find the animosity towards vegans laughable, but really really odd. Like when someone chooses not to eat something, you feel like you are being judged. I dont think GD ever meant that.

Yes, for the record, I am vegan. I do it first and foremost because it is healthy. Usually when I say that, the first thing brainwashed meat eaters say is "you'll never get enough protein' as if I live in some anti-atkins protein starved potato land. WTF?

Most people pay no mind to their nutrition and make little or no effort to study the economics of agriculture and the enviromental risks associated with cattle farming. If you are a rational empathetic person who believes empirical evidence is a means to a healthier society, then just do some research before lambasting a new idea.

Hey Zac, my wife really enjoyed your post. Her parents give her crap all the time about not getting enough protein and the reality is that she spends more time than anyone I know researching what we eat and if it's healthy. One of my favorite quotes from Pulp Fiction is Samuel Jackson's "My girlfriend is a vegetarian, which pretty much makes me a vegetarian". Now I want to eat a Big Kahuna burger and wash it down with a tasty beverage.

LOL that quote is pretty accurate. I went vegan as a ten day stint to lend moral support to my grilfriend while she was on some fad detox diet. She folded in 3 days. At the end of my ten day run, Thanksgiving, I ate some turkey with my family and that was the last meat I ever ate. I felt so much better as a vegan, I decided to stick with it. It is incredibly easy. My girlfriend noticed I felt better and tried it with me. I lost 15 pounds in less than a month, bringing me to my ideal weight. Girlfriend looking good too. our roommate went along with us when he noticed. then after some time, my coworker noticed my energy, health, physique and quit dairy. really dairy is the worst, far worse for humans than meat. My mother, who has lupis, is now reducing dairy. It helps her keep off excess weight since she is unabe to exercise.

Never once did I evangelize, other than to mention how much better I felt, and still feel. I have no problem with meat consumption, I just dont think it is a healthy choice. And to be able to make that choice in a free society is even more impotant for both sides. Just like abortion.

oh crap. I sound like I am witnessing. That sux, sorry guys. dont now what i was thinking going there. Debating the pros and cons, economics ethics etc is one thing here, but I shouldnt have brought it there. Sorry bout the hijack.

Comment from: Zac Hunter [Member]:

Sorry bout the hijack.".

No worries.
I actually tend to like "hijacks" as they show the passions of different people.
Which is almost always fascinating.