NoGodBlog.com

The answer seems blindingly obvious to me. Religion should be replaced with nothing because it's a redundant institution.

Right. There is no need to replace it with anything. And of course there will still be conflict and war, but surely the numbers would go down if religion was completely removed from the picture. Aggression, I believe, is built in to most species, we humans included. Still, I have to think it would be a far better world.

How about United Atheist Alliance or Unified Atheist League. I can't decide which..... tip to Southpark...

One great benefit of no more religion would be a huge amount of human time and energy to devote to things that really matter in the world! My mother in law, for example, volunteers at her church EVERY DAY (7 days/week), and is usually concerned with things such as ironing the linen cloths that cover the alter, or worrying about how to remove candle wax from them, or figuring out what to use as a centerpiece for the tables in the church lobby, etc.

Just think how much time and energy would be available to devote to reading, learning, and volunteering on work that REALLY makes a difference, such as cleaning up the environment or finding ways to help poor people improve their lot in life, without spending time telling them that they need to be "saved."

I agree with the earlier comments, though, that there is no reason to have something "replace" religion. But it would be nice to see some churches turned into community centers....places where people could get together for conversation, teens could hang out or watch videos, etc., without having to buy something (as in a mall) or pretend to worship some invisible guy! Please just don't call it "fellowship" - I hate that word!

Dina

Anti-abortion is not about religion, it is about male chauvinism and power of one sex to relegate the other to sub-equal status.

Anti-abortion is about the elimination of violence against human beings.

From the text book by Warren Hern Abortion Practice: The procedure called Dilatation and Evacuation (D&E). Through this procedure, the child is dismembered within the womb. Hern describes the procedure at various stages of pregnancy, starting at 13 weeks. I quote here from the section "21 to 24 Weeks Fetal Age":

"The procedure changes significantly at 21 weeks because the fetal tissues become much more cohesive and difficult to dismember. This problem is accentuated by the fact that the fetal pelvis may be as much as 5cm in width. The calvaria [head] is no longer the principal problem; it can be collapsed. Other structures, such as the pelvis, present more difficulty….A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus…"(p.154).

Martin Haskell testifying in court. See case sited below to look it up for your self.

"Let's just say for instance we took a different view, a different tact and we left the leg in the uterus just to dismember it. Well, we'd probably have to dismember it at several different levels because we don't have firm control over it, so we would attack the lower part of the lower extremity first, remove, you know, possibly a foot, then the lower leg at the knee and then finally we get to the hip."

"When the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move …or…we actually see a heartbeat as we're starting the procedure. It's not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first and that that limb is brought through the cervix …prior to disarticulation and prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise."

"When you're doing a dismemberment D&E usually the last part to be removed is the skull itself and it's floating free inside the uterine cavity…like a ping-pong ball floating around … Finally … a nip is made out of some area of the skull that allows it to start to decompress. And then once that happens typically the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece, the result being that sharp bony edges of the skull are exposed” (US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 98 C 0305 S).

Anti-abortion is not about religion, politics, gender domination or any other “issue” one wishes to make of it. It is about murder and the human rights the most basic right, the right to life, of humans, both male and female who are unable to defend themselves.

If you are not unnerved by the description of this murder, look at the pictures. If you are not unnerved by that check for a pulse.

Wow...the "bomb thrower" out did himself on this one...I read about 3 lines and knew exactly who wrote this thread...

Talk about being naive...

My Virginia personal and real property taxes would drop like a lead balloon once individuals, non-profit organizations, and corporations started taking over all the church property in my state and start paying their share of the taxes.

There has only been one party in the last 40 years who has supported tax breaks...

If atheism took the place of atheism, then they'd have to pick up the slack in helping others...

Can anyone point to an "atheist" organization who has done anything remotely comparable to the following...?

CSI frees 96 black African slaves

http://www.csi-int.org/march_26_2c_2007_csi_frees_.php

Re: What would take the place of religion?

Free Inquiry, I would hope.

Re: Abortion

Here's a great blog post I bookmarked that perfectly articulates the pro-choice position:

http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html

Very good list Dave and thanks Rainbows for the link. I think abortion is bad but the US education on sex is even worse.

r4d

Thanks for the link. That was a gut-wrenching story, one that I can to some degree associate with (although I will not go into detail). Usually I am a mild mannered person, but I too feel the rage when motherfucking busy-bodies seek to impose their sanctimonious, ill-conceived, holier-than-thou, 'moral values' upon those of us who disagree with their point of view.

And, yes Ann Marie, yes Phreedm, I'm talking to you. Don't want abortions? Don't have one.

Get the hell out of others' personal and medical lives.

I would replace religion with a large profesional practice of ethicists. Similar to how we have medical practices (doctors) and law practices (lawyers). Basicaly a group of people whose job it is to seek out those who need and want help, and help them as best as possible.

R4D:

The pro life position does not preclude treatments to save the mother.

You are really sweet Anne Marie and I am certain you believe what you say about abortion being violence against humans. Unfortunately, you are not the Church. The Church is made up of men. Men who wrote the gospels. Men who started a nation based on equality, but forgot to include people of color and women in their definition of equality. I know you are too young to remember suffrage, and the time when women couldn't own property. When a man could steal all his wife's money just because of the license he got from other men who controlled the government and the churches. Yes dear, I am certain you believe you are fighting the good fight to end the harmful ravages caused by abortion.

Tell me something, don't you think as a Christian it would be better for your lead by example instead of crawling into bed with politicians and tainting your cause with dirty politics?

Hey Anne Marie, I got a totally crazy idea. Why don't we get all the Christians who fight against abortion and instead of wasting their time trying to pass laws to put Board Certified Obstetricians in jail or hunt them down and shoot them like dogs in the street as they, of course, deserve; try passing universal health care and increase taxes for education and educators; and build affordable housing; and make it easier for working women to organize unions so they can receive higher wages.

Shit, you never know, if some of those conditions were actually realized, why a lot of women might just stop and think that having the baby is better than aborting she/he.

Naw, that is way too crazy. Christians would never go out of their way to actually make a difference for the poor working salt of the earth, especially for women and children. You know the largest group of poor in the wonderful United States of America Under God. Well the Church is just a bunch of rowdy, drunk, disgusting old men. What can you expect? Right?

R4D:

While I was upset at losing the little one that I saw on those ultrasounds, it did not feel even 1/100th of how I'd have felt if we'd lost my then 17 month old daughter. Not even close.

Another thought on the author’s post. One's human rights are not predicated on another’s feelings about those rights. Human rights are intrinsic to the human being him/her self.

Anne Marie:

Um, yes it does. Some on the anti-abortion side may occasionally pay lip service to the an exception for such treatments, but in practice, in law, it's a whole different story. The recent SCOTUS ruling is a perfect example.

You can chose to follow an absolutist morality or you can chose to follow a situationalist morality, but not both at the same time.

Peter:

You seam angry

R4D:

Could you link me to the specifics of the SCOUS ruling you are refering to so I don't have to hunt?

FYI, my info is the Church's position rather than the court's, but I would like to read your reference.

Human rights are intrinsic to the human being him/her self.

I might argue that human rights are intrinsic to the sentience of a being, and not necessarily to a perceived 'potential' of sentience. Then again, if you believe in ensoulment and I do not then there really is no point in continuing such an argument.

Anne Marie:

Could you link me to the specifics of the SCOUS ruling you are refering to so I don't have to hunt?

You really didn't hear about it? Wow. Okay:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html

Whoops. I screwed up my second to last post. Should read correctly now.

Religion just needs to go and there really is no reason that it would need to be replaced by anything. I think religious people are so conditioned into thinking that they need religion in their lives and therefore can't conceive of a world without it or with something similar to it.

When you excise a cancerous tumor, you don't replace it with anything to fill the gap. You just go on with a healthier life.

I liked r4d's Free Inquiry thought. But actually, I think that is there already. It's just being suppressed by religion, and if religion is gone, it should flourish naturally.


Thanks r4d, for the link to the blog about the abortion dilemma. A very gut-wrenching experience that no one should have to face.

Anne Marie, I will reiterate what someone else said. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. But stay out of every other woman's right to decide.

R4D:

I might argue that human rights are intrinsic to the sentience of a being, and not necessarily to a perceived 'potential' of sentience. Then again, if you believe in ensoulment and I do not then there really is no point in continuing such an argument.

You know I do believe in the ensoulment, however, even if I did not, sentience is a slippery standard. And then there is the touchy question of who sets that standard.

Anne Marie:

FYI, my info is the Church's position rather than the court's

Wow, Anne Marie, I keep catching you like this:

The pope calls abortion murder, saying that we need now more than ever to have the courage to look things in the eye and call things by their proper name. He acknowledges the tragedy that abortion can often be for the mother, and the emotional suffering it might cause her. The decision is often not made for selfish reasons, but to protect things like her own health or the living standards of the rest of the family. Sometimes there is a fear that the conditions into which the child is to be born are so bad that it is better that the child is not born. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being (EV n. 58).

http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/faith/living/abortion.htm

So I guess your info is definitely not on the Church's position, but rather your own personal position. That's okay though - we are all heretics. What really bother's me is that you are sitting in front a computer and therefore have the means to check your own sources before posting.

Kinda reminds me of the headache I got last night trying to help my stubborn, tweenaged son with his book report: "What do you mean you don't know? You have a computer! JUST GOOGLE IT!"

Karen:

I will reiterate what someone else said. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. But stay out of every other woman's right to decide.

We protect human beings in a number of ways, thru transfer programs such as SSI, thru law enforcement, thru child protective services, thru laws prohibiting the use of tran fatty acids, and smoking. A standard has been set for protection of the human person. Humans are not less human at some points of life than others.

sentience is a slippery standard. And then there is the touchy question of who sets that standard.

You are right, it is. And abortion, when analyzed rationally, is never an easy topic. But if you were a materialist it would be possible to say that there is a point during gestation (perhaps, as Sagan suggested, when brain waves can be detected) that a fetus becomes sentient. But again, such an argument simply won't cut it for a duelist.

What do we replace religion with? How about what's already been replacing religion (aka mythology) time after time after time.

SCIENCE.

Anne Marie

Humans are not less human at some points of life than others.

Right you are. Once we're BORN, we're humans. Before that, it's only potential humanity.

R4D:

You don't need to get testy.

It may take me a while since I’m not as good on Google as you, but I will the site for you outlining the Church’s position. The issue revolves around intent. Is the abortion deliberate or a consequence of the need to save the mother? Deliberate intention is the problem, saving the life of the mother is not.

AnneMarie

Deliberate intention is the problem, saving the life of the mother is not.

It seemed pretty clear from what r4d quoted on the church's position that the pope pretty much says, "Fuck the mother...no abortions, period."

Anne Marie

You don't need to get testy.

Testy? I wasn't mad at you. Just a little dumbfounded.

The issue revolves around intent. Is the abortion deliberate or a consequence of the need to save the mother? Deliberate intention is the problem, saving the life of the mother is not.

It would be nice if we really could simplify matters to where they revolve around intent, but the church's position will always break down at certain points of moral ambiguity. If there is a choice between saving a woman's life and save a fetus, then you cannot avoid intent no matter which way you choose to go. It's like the old man on the railroad tracks mind game - you are forced to access the value of otherwise equal examples. Do you save a full grown woman who probably has a husband and parents and perhaps other children and memories and knowledge and experience and opinions etc etc, or do you sacrifice her in order to save what can only be described as the mere potential of all the above?

Karen:

I Right you are. Once we're BORN, we're humans. Before that, it's only potential humanity..

"When the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move …or…we actually see a heartbeat as we're starting the procedure."

How is it possible to be alive, as the abortionist states in his testimony, and not human?

I thought this thread was about replacing religion with something else and not yet another pointless debate about abortion...

Alex,

Perhaps some are suggesting that we replace religion with "another pointless debate about abortion" :)

R4D:

I don’t know the stats. (Although I would guess you could find um real quick). But I suspect that the scenario of the tragic circumstances of the life of both mother and child threatened is a small percentage of the abortion big picture.

Violence against human persons is never a good idea and Peter seams to think it’s great or that it’s a gender issue or a political issue, or some other such nonsense. It’s not, it’s slicing up very little humans, and it’s horrifying.

Anne Marie
The fetus is human in nature, having human DNA. It is living. So are your individual cells. The fetus is only potentially a person until it can survive on its own outside the uterus, at which point it is a person, and has rights.

Alex
You're right about the thread. Sorry I took the bait. It's a hot button topic for me.

karen:

He quoted from a web site in England paraphrasing a church document. I would like to read the specific document myself prior to commenting.

I did read the Mother Teresa stuff you pointed me to btw, but I won’t go into it here.

Anne Marie:

Peter seams to think it’s great or that it’s a gender issue or a political issue, or some other such nonsense.

Well, I don't mean to speak for Peter (forgive me Peter), but I can imagine that his position is similar to my position: That outlawing abortion does far greater harm than good. Again, situationalist morality - you have to weigh the options rationally.

Alex:
I thought we'd already answered the question anyway.

Karen:

“Surviving on it’s own” is not a reasonable standard for human status. It would preclude human status for huge segments of the population who are in fact ex-womb members of society.

R4D:

Are you of the opinion that our society is in a better position than it was prior to Row v. Wade? If so how has Roe v. Wade enhanced society?

Anne Marie
OK. Then once it no longer has a parasitic attachment to another person, it is an individual in it's own right.

Anne Marie:

If so how has Roe v. Wade enhanced society?

Well, it gave women a safe and legal choice. Of course, the cynical response to that is always something to the effect of "she should've chosen to be more careful." If only the dynamics of male / female sexuality were so simple - if only they were so equal.

Another quick question for the general populous. If given the choice, looking back at your life, would you have chosen to be born or would you have chosen to have been dismembered in utero?

karen:

parasitic attachment to another person

This still defines huge segments of ex-wombeans.

'What if' questions are a silly and fallacious tactic. You might as well ask: "What if Hitler's mother had aborted him?" What does it matter? She didn't and neither did Beethoven's mother and neither did my mother. To quote an ex-poster here, 'is just is.'

Poor Anne Marie, no reading comprehension skills. Either that or she failed to take the bait. She sees the only way to deal with an issue is to use guns and bombs. Either make what she doesn't like illegal and send cops with guns to arrest doctors or go around blowing up medical facilities.

I always knew being a Christian was a whole lot harder than pretending to be one. It is too bad Anne can't try acting like a Christian and help the poor like Jesus told her. But of course, she is right and the rest of us will always be wrong. Know we all know the problem when we deal with those who totally lack reading comprehension skills. Can't read. Too bad.

Peter,

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't see anything in her posts that indicated that she was advocating violence... or that she doesn't help the poor and can't read.

You are projecting. Take a deep breath or something.

R4D:
It matters because life is a basic human right. We as humans don’t have the right to take another’s human rights away. Through out human history it just has not resulted in good things happening in our societies. My question is intended to give consideration to the fact that we were extended the basic human right to life and by extension we should have concern for that most basic right for our fellow human beings.

Peter:
Again, you seam angry.

On the original topic, I'd say replace religion with philosophy. Not A philosophy, just the continual study of what others think constitutes good living and to what degree you personally agree with that. Philosophy is much more flexible, democratic, and respectful of the individual than religion ever was. At the same time, it seems well adapted to addressing social and emotional quesitons that, currently, too many people feel can only be answered by their religious dogma.

R4D:

Thanks for sticking up for me even though we don't agree. I really do appreciate your brains.

Anne Marie

Do we grant human rights simply because the grantee is alive? Probably not when it comes right down to it. I'm sure it has more to do with the fact that the grantee is human. So what makes us human? Again, an atheist and theist will probably come up completely different answers to that question.

I guess what it really comes down to, personally, when push comes to shove, is that I don't place the same human value on the unborn than I do the born. Also, for me at least, human value increases as gestation progresses. To be blunt about it, I couldn't give a rat's ass about blastocyst, and I don't worry a whole lot about the potential 'humaness' of a fetus in the first trimester either. They spontaneous abort all the time anyway - nature is messy. But my attitude begins to change during the second trimester as more of the building blocks are in place and a nervous system forms, and I take the choice more seriously (I still think there should be a choice, just in case. But it shouldn't be an arbitrary choice and it rarely is anyway.) Third trimester, out of bounds. That's pretty much a baby in there.

That's my personal approach, and I think it reflects a lot of people on the pro-choice side.

I must agree that we don't exactly see atheist organizations out in force within the public square assisting the poor, the marginalized, and such. When I was in Los Angeles working on skidrow (I actually worked at a secular organization where every person there was either Jewish or Christian), I saw a whole lot of different religious organizations providing services, even fundamentalist Christians (Salvation Army). I also have read that the Catholic Church provides 25% of all assistance to AIDS victims around the world, among their other forms of charity with the homeless, the poor, and the marginalized. Now I've seen Dave encourage people to give blood for crisis situations and the such. But could someone point me to the works of charity atheist organizations are doing everywhere (of course no implying that there are not atheists doing anything...all I looked at was American Atheists website)?

I read this article by Dr. Tim Gorski http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/charity.htm that says atheists are reviled. I don't necessarily agree that they are reviled, especially if one argues that makes it impossible to form charitable organizations and do good works through them.

R4D:

We will have to agree to disagree about at what point to protect the life in question. Historically we have simply done so poorly with making decisions as to who to protect, when to protect them, how to protect them. As a people we have even chosen to persecute whole groups of people under the guise of improving society.

Looking at historical issues such as eugenics, human slavery and civil rights, and the list goes on and on around the globe. Erring on the side of the right of the human person to live just looks like the most humane option in the context of our tremendous capacity as human beings to be inhumaine.

I’ll quite bugging you guys now.

Jacob23:

'Atheist' organizations in America so far have only existed to protect the expand the right to be an atheist and to keep religious encroachment on our government in check. There are a couple of national humanist organizations who do charity work - our local American Humanist chapter performs a lot of the same charitable duties as your average church would: free counseling to anyone, free drug and alcohol rehabilitation, help with affordable housing, food drives, blood drives, etc. It's a small organization, but then again we affirmed atheists are a small and poorly organized group. And that is exactly what we are trying to change.

And I think there is something to Dr. Gorski's point. Having grown up in the Bible Belt, I can imagine that if your average Christian was in need and he/she received a care package labeled 'American Atheists,' then that package would go straight to the garbage. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be sending it though.

Jacob "I also have read that the Catholic Church provides 25% of all assistance to AIDS victims around the world"

Well if those same compassionate catholic wouldn't preach that condoms are evil there wouldn't be so many people in the Third World dying of AIDS.

I would trade all the religion in the world for one burger from Jack in the Box. Awwww, I can taste it now.

Anne Marie

Some folks here finf you to be sweet. I think you are a typical morally corrupt xian. That is I think you are a xain.

The deaths of 100s of thousands of Iraqis means little to you. The desplacement of millions of Iraqis (likely a permanent one) from their homes means little to you. What is important to you is the death of americans only and xian americans at that.

You are sweet like cyanide.

Folks. Can you feel it. It is palpable. Xian America is running scared. Their support of our war criminal president will be their destruction. Adios dios!

What

When exactly did Anne Marie state that the deaths of Iraqis means little to her?

So, Atheists don't do any charitable work?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Red Cross founded by an Atheist (or agnostic/freethinker)?

Just imagine how little we would have to discuss abortion if the religious wackos would stop forcing abstinence only programs (which has been proven time and again it doesn't work) instead of good, solid and scientific sex education.

Anne Marie
Sorry, I was out running errands.

parasitic attachment to another person

This still defines huge segments of ex-wombeans.

Who are you talking about? Siamese twins? I doubt there are a huge # of them, and usually the two are interdependant upon each other, not just one upon the other.
By parasitic relationship, I mean a literal and physical dependance, as in the fetus thru the umbilical cord and the womb. I'm not speaking of the metaphorical needy relationship.

I would trade all the religion in the world for one burger from Jack in the Box. Awwww, I can taste it now.

Or a Super Taco.

would you have chosen to have been dismembered in utero

I would have chosen abortion on myself. I don't hate my life but if I never would have been born I wouldn't have known it. I also think the resources spent on me could have been put to saving the 40,000 people that starve to death everyday worldwide.

I've got a bit of time now to elaborate on my prior answer to what we should replace religion with.

SCIENCE. Every Sunday morning we learn science (ok, Saturday for some, Ramadam gets a special science month, etc). I guess using that criteria, every day would be science day for one or another segment of the world.

It a subject I think everyone on this earth could benefit from learning more about. SCIENCE could encompass just about everything, too. Plants, animals, health, all that good stuff. How many times have you seen something and thought "I wonder how that works" or "I wonder how they do that". With science, you could find out.

Imagine if all the religious people in the world, and us atheists too, got as excited about science as they/we do about some invisible sky guy or that spagetti monster thingy.

All that talent and energy expended on scientific breakthroughs? What a wonderful world it could be.




Well, back to reality for now

Boise Jim,

Regarding your appropriately sarcastic question and to anyone who takes this question seriously: "So, Atheists don't do any charitable work?" ....see EXCELLENT video at:

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/atheist-p1.php?vid=7177

...also linked on my site at http://www.branchbrothers.net/write.htm (Bible deems godless as fools)

Actually Bill and Melinda Gates, atheists, do tremendous charitable work through thier foundations not to mention that his companies do more to alleviate human suffering through technology than Mother Teresa ever did in her lifetime of charity. The reason you don't see atheist specific charity very often is because atheists are not an organised group like religious people so our charity often comes without the atheist label attached.

Jacob23,
"I also have read that the Catholic Church provides 25% of all assistance to AIDS victims around the world"

You know who also gives a shitload of assistance to AIDS victims around the world? Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, both of whom are atheists.

Damn you alex! You beat me to it.

As for the original topic question, let's replace religion with free cupcakes on Sundays. And, reduce the cost of higher education.

Anne Marie:

Looking at historical issues such as eugenics, human slavery and civil rights, and the list goes on and on around the globe. Erring on the side of the right of the human person to live just looks like the most humane option in the context of our tremendous capacity as human beings to be inhumane.

Are you KIDDING me?!?
These things were done by, & bolstered by folks under the influence of religion. The ancient Israelites believed they were the 'holy race' (root of eugenics), practiced slavery, mistreated other races, had strict rules that favored men.
Typical. All the GOOD stuff sprang from religion, all the BAD stuff sprang from people.
Livin' in a dream world, are we?

KA:

I fail to follow your logic. Do you agree with me that humans are capable of great inhumanity? If so, so far so good. I'm not clear on the point you are making after we establish that fact.

I'm making a point for human persons and their human rights, in this case the right to life.
Are you trying to make the point that religious people have done BAD stuff. If so ok, no contest.

Are you trying to make the point that therefore tiny human beings should be denied the most basic of human rights, that of life itself. If so I'm not seeing the logic.

my vote is for a network of centers to perform the many things that churchs now do just minus the supernatural stuff.
Anne Marie the good news is steady progress is being made improving our ability to protect welfare of pregnant and postpartum women and also in preventing or correcting problems in the unborn.this will go along way in reducing abortion.we still need to do a better job educating young about the laws on sex and the teachings of whatever religion or philosophy they belong to.

Peter,

Your posts sometimes aggravate me, but that's usually a good thing. If this blog isn't aggravating people, it probably isn't doing its job!

However, I have a small bone to pick with you.

You use a drawing of Calvin (from the comic strip, "Calvin & Hobbes") praying to the FSM.

Calvin's creator, Bill Watterson, has never licensed any Calvin & Hobbes merchandise and I doubt you have permission to use his character on this blog.

I always get annoyed when I see xians driving around with a sticker of Calvin praying to the cross. That sticker is not licensed and is therefore stolen from Mr. Watterson. Haven't these people heard of the 8th commandment?

Okay, I know this may be a small matter in the larger scheme of things, but I like to feel that we atheists take the higher road and that we do not take things that don't belong to us.

Here are some links and quotes regarding this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Watterson

Watterson also battled against pressure from publishers to merchandise his work, something that he felt would cheapen his comic. He refused to merchandise his creations on the grounds that pasting Calvin and Hobbes images on commercially-sold coffee mugs, stickers and t-shirts would devalue the characters and their personalities. He also refused to allow the strip to appear as an animated series.

http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/calvinandhobbes/interview_text.html?dupe=with_honor

Q: What led you to resist merchandising Calvin and Hobbes?

A: For starters, I clearly miscalculated how popular it would be to show Calvin urinating on a Ford logo. . . . Actually, I wasn't against all merchandising when I started the strip, but each product I considered seemed to violate the spirit of the strip, contradict its message, and take me away from the work I loved.

TXatheist:

I would have chosen abortion on myself. I don't hate my life but if I never would have been born I wouldn't have known it.

But the rest of the world would have known it and you would have been missed. The little boy you are holding on your blog would have missed you, if he is your son, well no you means no him and that would be a tragedy. Txatheist, you are valuable, your life has tremendous value and is more precious and important to those around you than you can possibly imagine. That is the inherent value of every human life. A human life has value simply because it exists. Your life individually has value simply because you are a part of the world. Every human life has that same intrinsic value and to treat it as anything less is to dehumanize ourselves.

American farmland alone has the capacity to feed the entire world. Human hunger is more a function of political wrangling than lack of capacity to produce food. I don’t think your Big Mac consumption over a lifetime has adversely impacted world hunger.

Anne Marie is not the real debate, over the best way to reduce abortion.
would not the church achieve better results if it put the focus on others areas instead of making abortion illegal.

AnneMarie

A human life has value simply because it exists.

All life has value just because it exists. Warthogs, puppies, plants, fish, spiders.
Do you fret over the dead possum on the road?
Do you agonize over frogs being used in laboratories?
Do you let ants run wild in your kitchen?
Are you a vegan?
Do you mow your grass?

And if TXatheist had been aborted, he would not have been missed and the world would not have known it. He would not have developed into the person he is, is all. He would have been unaware, and no one could have known who he'd have become or what he'd have done.
He has value because he did get born and live to become an interactive human, with thoughts and memories and accomplishments. As someone else said, you can't play the 'what if' game. You have to deal with what -and who- is here in the now.

Anne Marie:

I fail to follow your logic. Do you agree with me that humans are capable of great inhumanity? If so, so far so good. I'm not clear on the point you are making after we establish that fact.

Sorry, you're post is somewhat off-topic on this thread.
I thought you were arguing about a human-only, non-transcendent POV. My bad.

I'm making a point for human persons and their human rights, in this case the right to life.

This may shock you, but I'm both pro-choice AND pro-life.

Are you trying to make the point that religious people have done BAD stuff. If so ok, no contest.

Nice to hear a religious person cop to it. Seriously.

Are you trying to make the point that therefore tiny human beings should be denied the most basic of human rights, that of life itself. If so I'm not seeing the logic.

Now you're back to reading more than what was meant into what was said.
Safe, legal, rare. Someone else said that, I adopted it.
It's about women's reproductive rights, the decision to be able to make a decision, rather than have it taken completely out of their hands.
You might also note, that abortion isn't a new procedure: it dates back to Aristotle. Judaic tradition has it that the child is a person when it crowns, not before.
Is it life? Yes. Is it human life? Yes. Is it a woman's right to decide on something fundamentally life-changing? A hundred times: YES.
Do you own yourself, Anne? Are matters squarely in your own hands? Don't slip into 'god has me': subtract that, or better yet, factor in free will.
Do you have free will?
Even that is a choice.

KA:

It's about women's reproductive rights, the decision to be able to make a decision, rather than have it taken completely out of their hands.

No decision regarding pregnancy is “completely out of the hands” of either a man or a woman. It is BOTH a man and a woman’s right to decide to engage in the act that will result in pregnancy. Men and women know prior to the pregnancy the potential end game of the behavior they are engaging in.

Self control is not beyond the pale of human capacity. We make decisions requiring self control constantly, athletes train, students study, vegans forgo meat by way of self control and premeditated decision making. The time for both men and women to exercise the right to decide about their behavior is prior to engaging in the behavior as we human beings do about virtually every aspect of our lives.

Once any human right has been exercised the next step in the human equation is to accept responsibility for the consequences. This is one of the basic building blocks of human society. Rights and responsibilities, actions and consequences.

A pregnancy is an entirely new person it is not an extension of either the woman or the man that created it. Mammalian biology requires a host for an incubation period. Earlier in this thread someone said “is just is”. That simply is. It does not reduce the fetus to non-human status and human beings have rights.

Do you own yourself, Anne? Are matters squarely in your own hands? Don't slip into 'god has me': subtract that, or better yet, factor in free will.
Do you have free will?

All human beings have free will. Animals don’t have free as they are not capable of the thought process necessary for free will. This is one of the great divides between animals and human beings.

Matters over which I am able to decide are indeed squarely in my own hands, yes. And I accept responsibility for my decisions daily. When those decisions affect other people, as mine often do, I weigh my decisions very carefully in consideration of those other people.

Anne Marie:

Two words...

Shut Up

(as quoted from Shreck)

How 'bout we replace religion with blathering idiots who haven't a clue as to what their talking about.

Oh wait, that IS religion!

Oops, that's "they're".

Ann Marie, you said "Animals don’t have free (will) as they are not capable of the thought process necessary for free will."

What about animals and birds that make some kind of a choice and sacrifice an offspring after birth or hatching?? Evidently they are thinking something--like maybe they know that both (or all) their offspring will die if they try to sustain all?

Your problem is that being xian, you are unable to recognize that we are all animals--just a slightly higher form, or so some believe.

Anne:
No decision regarding pregnancy is “completely out of the hands” of either a man or a woman.
Taking away a woman’s reproductive rights does exactly that.
It is BOTH a man and a woman’s right to decide to engage in the act that will result in pregnancy. Men and women know prior to the pregnancy the potential end game of the behavior they are engaging in.
‘Control yourselves or else’.
Self control is not beyond the pale of human capacity. We make decisions requiring self control constantly, athletes train, students study, vegans forgo meat by way of self control and premeditated decision making. The time for both men and women to exercise the right to decide about their behavior is prior to engaging in the behavior as we human beings do about virtually every aspect of our lives.
Really? I can imagine you’ve never been dirt poor, or undereducated.
Once any human right has been exercised the next step in the human equation is to accept responsibility for the consequences. This is one of the basic building blocks of human society. Rights and responsibilities, actions and consequences.
Hey, I’m big on responsibility.
A pregnancy is an entirely new person it is not an extension of either the woman or the man that created it. Mammalian biology requires a host for an incubation period. Earlier in this thread someone said “is just is”. That simply is. It does not reduce the fetus to non-human status and human beings have rights.
An unborn fetus doesn’t have any legal rights. Check the 14th amendment.
What you people should be doing, is trying to eliminate poverty. There goes a huge percentile of the problem right there.
No, the mother comes first. It’s that simple.
We’ll never see eye-to-eye, because you want to invest the fetus w/that improbable, unprovable quality known as a soul.
You bring me evidence of that, I’ll be a believer.

Anne Marie:

Self control is not beyond the pale of human capacity

The ability to control yourself is contingent on freedom of the self in the first place. This is how abortion can be considered a women's rights issue, and it is exactly how and why abortion became decriminalized in the first place.

We still, to this day, live in a patriarchal society. For example: young men are admired for having many girlfriends while young women doing the same can still be referred to as 'sl_uts'. If a married woman is pious, she is then expected to submit to her husband. Even in non-religious relationships, the power dynamics between man and woman are often extremely lopsided. So while it may be ideal and it certainly sounds good to say "men and women know prior to the pregnancy the potential end game of the behavior they are engaging in," in practice, in reality, it just rarely happens that way. A woman may be completely aware of the consequences of sex, but was she actually in control when it was happening? I can cite at least a dozen personal examples off the top of my head where the answer is a definite no.

Another point I'd like to make:
It's pretty easy to form a strong opinion on abortion, yet it appears to be even easier for a person to complete reverse their opinion once they're actually in the situation. I've often relayed the stories my sister would tell me while she worked at Planned Parenthood - about how often she would see women, who weeks before had been shouting and praying and harassing in the pro-life picket lines outside, later secretly come in to terminate a pregnancy. "It happened all the time!" were my sister's words, and the excuses were always the same: 'my situation is different.'

I had thought Lazare's question was pretty much rhetorical.
But I just read the article and apparently he really wants something to supplant religion, as that's where the religious find their 'meaning" in life.

We can't wave a wand and "relegate religion to the proverbial scrapheap of history". It must be done through each individual coming to the realization that it is useless information, and not mindlessly infecting each new generation with it.

So I guess what it would be replaced with would be rational thought. Each person is still on his/her own to find meaning in life. (Odds are, there will always be those who have to depend on the supernatural to avoid the harsh truth of our mortality and to make them feel better about the finite lives they have.)

As new generations were raised without religion permeating their thought processes, they would take full advantage of Free Inquiry and rationality and Science to either answer questions or recognize questions as for the time being, unanswerable.

karen:

But I just read the article and apparently he really wants something to supplant religion, as that's where the religious find their 'meaning" in life.

Whenever a pet dies at my little sister's house, she immediately goes out & gets a new cat or dog.

KA
And I just keep accumulating more pets even without any dying! What does that say about me? ;)

Well, at least she gives a pet a home.

karen:
It says that you either have a heart as big as the whole outdoors, or that you're a soft touch. ;)

I would replace religion with hope....but then, that would happen all by itself.

The "What If" Game?....

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, everday would be Christmas.

KA

karen:
It says that you either have a heart as big as the whole outdoors, or that you're a soft touch. ;)

Guilty on both counts.
It also says my carpet has a LOT of stains in it!!!!

shit I screwed that quote up it's

The "What If" Game?....

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, everyday would be Christmas.

That's a pleasant fantasy, Peter, but one that would require ENORMOUS amounts of cannabis.


And matches.

We’ll never see eye-to-eye, because you want to invest the fetus w/that improbable, unprovable quality known as a soul.
You bring me evidence of that, I’ll be a believer.

This issue is not one of a soul, it’s one of humanness. The problem with dehumanizing any stage of human life is the potential for dehumanizing all stages of human life and the devastating consequences of that have been seen time and again throughout human history.

In terms of evidence of a soul a completely different question, I will have to read up on the matter, it’s not an area I have touched on in my theological reading. If I find something I will get back to you.

Anne:

This issue is not one of a soul, it’s one of humanness. The problem with dehumanizing any stage of human life is the potential for dehumanizing all stages of human life and the devastating consequences of that have been seen time and again throughout human history.

Well, I say stripping a woman of her choice in the matter is dehumanizing. It's taking anything resembling choice straight out of her hands, denying her the ability to choose.
Human life is precious. But I will always side w/the life extant as opposed to the life potential.
In the cases of a child born of rape, or a tubular pregnancy, or even in the extreme case, where the child's potential for being stillborn, or deformed beyond any possibility of a quality-driven life, how say you?
I say, if the quickening occurs, & in absence of the above mentioned issues, & if we're talking about someone who's middle-class & above (not poverty-stricken, or encumbered w/too many children), I say it's too late: you're stuck w/it.

We still, to this day, live in a patriarchal society. For example: young men are admired for having many girlfriends while young women doing the same can still be referred to as 'sl_uts'.

Fathers it would appear then have a great deal of influence and are extremely important. I suppose it’s all a question of how men choose to demonstrate their concern for women, and what messages they communicate to their children thru their behavior.

she would see women, who weeks before had been shouting and praying and harassing in the pro-life picket lines outside, later secretly come in to terminate a pregnancy.

Seams a touch odd that they wouldn’t go to the next town over. How secret could it be if they were with a team of people outside the same place weeks earlier? Nevertheless, acquiescence to a behavior having been earlier condemned does not provide proof of it’s beneficial nature.

KA:

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy or any condition that threatens the mothers life, if treatment of her results in the lost of the pregnancy no natural law has been violated.

In all other cases, human life has value simply because it exists, not because of what it does, or accomplishes, or contributes, or any other qualifier. From the smartest to the simplest, the richest to the poorest, the most beautiful to the ugliest, all human life has value. Period. Once we make judgments about value in one circumstance we open the door to judgments along race, gender, intelligence, appearance lines etc., and that is problematic.

AnneMarie
If "human life has value simply because it exists," how is that value negated if the human life is a threat to the mother's life?

How do you make the decision as to which is expendible?

And once you make the decision for either, then that can be applied at any point to any stage of human life, as you said.

Seems like you want it both ways.

Anne:

In all other cases, human life has value simply because it exists, not because of what it does, or accomplishes, or contributes, or any other qualifier. From the smartest to the simplest, the richest to the poorest, the most beautiful to the ugliest, all human life has value. Period. Once we make judgments about value in one circumstance we open the door to judgments along race, gender, intelligence, appearance lines etc., and that is problematic.

As Karen so aptly points out, there's a hole in your argument.
This is the 'slippery slope' argument - that it's a step backwards rather than a step forward.
More often than not, it's not a procedure of convenience.
Again I say, eliminate the root, the tree will fall. Address poverty (& it's attendant educational void), & much of it will disappear. Not all.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy or any condition that threatens the mothers life, if treatment of her results in the lost of the pregnancy no natural law has been violated.

Okay, waitaminnit here.
Natur