betsy

Yes, I'm asking him - in the context that if we base it on psychoanalysis (which btw I pointed out to be questionable), it does seem there is a similarity. For the life of me I don't know why atheists always have to invoke religion or God or divinity. Here I am a believer who can freely use and hide behind my faith as a tool for debate, and yet I choose to steer away from including it in this argument about baby-killings. Atheists, being non-believers to the existence of God, by logic, should never even use that for an argument in topics such as this, when it's clear that I am comparing the evil of Hitler/followers to that of this current day evil. Can atheists like Pinko and Shwa, as an example, not be able to explain their position without invoking divinity - specifically the Christian God? If I can do it, why can't they? I don't fight. I say it like I see it is....no mincing about it. Imho, there is no pussy-footing around when babies are being killed everyday. Perhaps it is those who cannot bear to face the facts being presented before them in 3D that engage in these "fights" because they do not want to face it for what it truly is. In other words, they cannot defend their support for baby-killings. You didn't read the preceding posts by some atheists who threw insults when the argument was first presented? You didn't see the term "idiotic," "lunatic religious zealot," "pitiful, narrow-minded Catholic" come flying - predictably - across the board??? I was expecting that. I usually ignore those insults (unless when I have to give them as examples to prove my point). It's normal reaction, I guess....to react knee-jerk when someone steps on a nerve. I assume we are all adults in this forum. I assume we all have thinking minds. All I do is present my argument. If they don't like my style.....that's their problem, not mine. I cannot change your minds. I am hoping perhaps this argument will.....if you can unwrap yourselves from your obsession with religion.

Let me save you the trouble. When child becomes human being 223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not a. it has breathed; b. it has an independent circulation; or c. the navel string is severed. Infanticide 233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed. R.S., c. C-34, s. 216. ________________________________________http://www.canadiancrc.com/Infanticide-Criminal_Code_Canada_Offence.aspx http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/familylaw/lawarticle-27/abortion-law-in-canada.aspx And?

One of you atheists here argued that life is deemed more valuable because you only have that one life and you're gone. What about that poor baby you sanctioned to be killed? He never even got a chance at life at all. Anyway, for those who are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights Creative ways to sidestep that law. I forgot what it's called but some doctors maneuver the baby so that it is still partly in the womb when they kill him.

The evil of Hitler lasted only for a few years. If we are horrified at what Hitler had done, what more when it is mothers who seek the killings of their own children - with the blessing of society. For what??? So a woman need not be encumbered, inconvenienced for 9 months!

http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/01/19/news/doc4d370f3ede2b5822015772.txt http://www.slate.com/id/2281812/

The evil continues... http://www.abortiontv.com/Methods/GeorgeTiller.htm

Anyway, just something to chew on: In the mid-to-late 19th century, during the fight for women's suffrage in the U.S., many first-wave feminists, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton opposed abortion.[69][70] In the newspaper she operated with Susan B. Anthony, The Revolution, an anonymous contributor signing "A" wrote in 1869 about the subject, arguing that instead of merely attempting to pass a law against abortion, the root cause must also be addressed. Simply passing an anti-abortion law would, the writer stated, "be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. [...] No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."[70][71][72][73] Around 1970, during second-wave feminism, abortion and reproductive rights were unifying issues among various women's rights groups in Canada, the United States, the Netherlands, Britain, Norway, France, Germany, and Italy.[74] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion --------------------

Anyway, all these yada-yada-yada from the pro-choice, atheist faction....deflection galore. They throw everything BUT. So typical that everyone neatly side-stepped, or overlooked the evil being presented by the main argument: It is necessary to de-humanize the fetus so these women need not be inconvenienced for 9 months - and can have their offsprings butchered without any guilt. That's the main reason for this so-called Woman's autonomous right - to do what she wants with her body! The ultimate EMPOWERMENT, the right to kill. Gee, the way you guys are so adept at this, I'm inclined to believe you're related to the ostrich!

And as I recall Pinko was a Unitarian who later became a Catholic. Why he ended up an atheist remains a very intriguing mystery...there-in lies the answer I bet for his relentless ad hominem posts without anything to add to the discussion. Reminds me of someone who used to chain-smoke, then becomes the most judgemental enemy of the cigarette. Nothing can be more zealous than that! So I don't really take him seriously. He proved himself to be another sample of the kind of atheists I was referring to in God vs Science. And as I recall Pinko became quite emotional about pedophiles (not that I blame him for that), and insisted on calling them "evil." If he considers pedophiles evil, one would think that he would consider the pro-choice advocates to be the very devil incarnate. Well, not only didn't he just keep his opinion to himself, instead he comes out in full throttle to support mass-baby killing! Go figure.

So, contrary to what you implied in previous post, it is safe to conclude then that for you, life has no value? It must be tough to be in a position where in.... damn if you do, damn if you don't. So, we're back to psychoanalysis - you are similar to a psychopath?

They can't even call it for what it is. They cannot face it for what it truly is.

I don't need to back that up. It is plain as day! So very in your face. In fact it is you who need to back up your absurd statement because....you got that backward. It should state: The assertion that a fetus is NOT a person and deserving of the full rights of personhood is a relatively modern one. If the fetus wasn't considered a human being all along, can you please explain.... Why there is a need to declare that it is not? Why is there a division among us in this regard? Why are baby-killing advocates so loud in their assertion? Why do you even have to assert?

Going back to discussion of Evil: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17934&st=90 So the evil of Hitler still reverberate after all these years. Actually we need not dig that far back in history to find an excellent example for that quoted philosphy above. We have in our current time an evil that must surpass that of Hitler's and the Spanish Inquisition. How tragically the status of a human was slowly diminished over the years, until finally, he was totally stripped of his identity, his right and dignity. From human to trash. The fetus in a mother's womb had always been recognized and cherished as a human being. Wether wanted or not, he had his natural right to be born, to be raised, to grow up...the same right that his own mother had enjoyed as a fetus growing in her own mother's womb. However some mothers could not find it in their hearts to carry the child to full term. The shame, the stigma....it was too much. Young women were dying in the back alley in their attempt to terminate their own offsprings. Society said, "for the good of these young women, we better make sure they get help from competent doctors to do the deed." Therefore, open season for any fetus 3 months old and below was declared by law. It's fine to kill babies as long as they're not older than 3 months. In the meantime, contraceptive devices became available to prevent any pregnancies. Alas, that was not enough. Babies were still being murdered even when they were older than what was stipulated. Still, it was for the "good" that this was being done. Good for a young woman not to ruin her life with a baby in tow. Anti-baby murder groups tried their best to protect and save the babies. Films showing how the fetus in the womb tries to evade the instrument that's killing him - a pitiful fight for self-preservation. Babies for Adoption was being pushed as the most practical solution, what with so many childless couples desperate to adopt children. I remember talking to a young woman going to College. She is a supporter of baby killings. I asked why can't a mother carry and deliver the baby, then just give him up for adoption? This young woman answered, "why should she waste 9 months of her life?" It's the time of women empowerment. The movement was just thundering along. So for the good of everyone....and to make those women feel no guilt about snuffing their babies, it became necessary to declare the fetus as not human. To empower women, it became a woman's right to decide whether her child should live or die.

Cybercoma, Please know that I don't mean to insult you. But we are engaged in a discussion about atheists/atheism. I am presenting my argument. Anyway, I only touched a portion of your latest reply....I have to go. Maybe will post more later.

You make it sound like a fad.... Atkins diet, low-carb-high protein, All-protein diet....everyone just jumping in on the bandwagon with the goal of achieving weight-loss, yet overlooking the fact that it's not just the diet...it's a change in lifestyle. You make it sound like....Christian religion. With all the different denomination....different interpretation. All proclaiming to be Christians....and yet overlooking the fact that to be a Christian, we have to believe and follow the teachings of Christ. So you're saying atheistic beliefs comes in different shades. Most of what I've read lean closer to Agnosticism, actually. Some of the ad hominem statements by some posters who I just ignore seems to be repeating the usual mantra...more to convince themselves than to engage in a discussion. There seems to be a confusion for some, or they cannot even explain their position. It must still be there..."abstract" in their minds. What is a true atheist?

Perhaps in another topic. But not here and not in Jesus Camp!

You mean you don’t believe in nothing. Oh yes you must! IF you are an atheist. Remember my “Nothing” post in Creation? http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17897&st=135 Who said anything about divinity? All I ‘m doing is follow the logic of the atheistic belief....their belief that we came from nothing. That we exist simply by pure chance. To sum up the atheistic belief: the world came from nothing (pure chance), by nothing (no Creator), and for nothing (no purpose, meaningless). If you believe that life has a value, then you are not consistent with atheism.

The video is funny, btw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Harvey

Well Bonam, here's the logic of what you said. You're born to eat. You eat to survive. You survive to reproduce. Then you die. Is that the meaning of your life? I don't know what you mean by "hopelessly stunted." But if you imagine I'm a zealot, by definition I wouldn't be logical. But that's an ad hominem argument anyway, so we'll just ignore it.

Which particular quote? If you are an atheist you don't believe what you said. So you're probably not an atheist. You're a relativist. You seem to imagine that everyone is his own god. If you think everything is truth....then there is no truth. If you think life has some value, then you're not an atheist.

"Most"..."large"...it doesn't matter really. Okay, let's concentrate on those "thousands upon thousands" who witnessed and participated in the Final Solution. The SS, the concentration camp guards, the police, the German citizens who turned in Jews that were hiding. They saw the "good" behind Hitler's vision.

As far as I know, atheists believe there is no God or gods/goddesses/deities. Care to enlighten me then about what "anything" else they do believe in?

I am saying that atheist cannot consistently claim the distinction between right and wrong. Take note that I stressed on the word "consistently." Atheist believe that we exists by sheer chance. There is no purpose. Our existence has no meaning. Therefore, life has no value. Anyway psycopaths was given as an example...hence I say again: Who's to say that psychoanalysis is right? It's not provable.

More like.... "gulped!" Why do you think I'd be sad? Having said several times that I don't normally go to church (and you of all people in this forum should know that)....therefore it's only logical for any thinking minds that I must be one of those who hardly touched the plate, let alone passed it around.

Some psychopaths just go about doing what is required in their day-to-day lives, without concern for anything else or anybody else. It doesn't mean they can't do any good....almost like a utilitarian code of ethics. In one way psychopaths, as described in psychoanalysis, are similar to atheists, wouldn't you say? Atheist believe there is no meaning and value in life, and so can't consistently claim the distinction between right and wrong.