roy baty Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) I am strongly against late term and live birth abortions unless it is to save the life of the mother. However, as a person who the OP likely considers is a loon for even believing in God, I believe a woman should be allowed to decide what's best for HER body including taking PERSONAL responsibility for the termination of the pregnancy. I suppose someday once we're dead we'll all find out if there is indeed a God, and of course as a result also if a fetus is considered a life at conception. In other words, as a person who believes in a divine Creator I say we are better off this day and age to leave it in his hands. We're well beyond the point of trying to outlaw it and any politician who wants any chance of considerable leadership wouldn't even touch the subject. If it turns out someday that blood is on the hands of the millions responsible for the millions of abortions, they will answer for it and it is not up to us to judge anyone before then. Alternatively, if there isn't a God, then I guess this was all for nothing anyhow.. Edited February 12, 2013 by roy baty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Alternatively, if there isn't a God, then I guess this was all for nothing anyhow.. How so? Whether human actions committed in the real world are ethical or unethical, and the debate surrounding that, is important regardless of the existence or non-existence of a magic sky fairy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 How so? Whether human actions committed in the real world are ethical or unethical, and the debate surrounding that, is important regardless of the existence or non-existence of a magic sky fairy. When I said all for nothing, I didn't mean this debate. I meant it "all". I find it rather interesting how many are arrogant enough to mock even the idea of a greater mind behind all of this by calling him a "magic fairy" yet have faith vesting soley in science while at the same time denying the mathematical impossibility that life and the universe as we know it all came about by blind luck. One on my side of the fence could also mock the athiests that believe that all of this is all a fuke is as equally infantile and silly as believing in a "magic fairy" now couldn't I? However, I choose not to as I have faith in someone that has taught me that even the athiest will one day have his/her eyes opened. The lack of belief in a higher power and the accounatbilty in the next life for one's actions that comes with it makes it much easier for someone to accept that abortion is not the act of ending a life. I prefer to believe that I originated from a superior form of life and not an inferior one as the altheist would have me believe. I also believe that someday this "magic fairy" as you call him today while you still draw breath will someday open yours and everyone who has ever existed's eyes to to see that incredible human potential is far greater than the very limited potential an athiest would have us all believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 When I said all for nothing, I didn't mean this debate. I meant it "all". I find it rather interesting how many are arrogant enough to mock even the idea of a greater mind behind all of this by calling him a "magic fairy" yet have faith vesting soley in science while at the same time denying the mathematical impossibility that life and the universe as we know it all came about by blind luck. One on my side of the fence could also mock the athiests that believe that all of this is all a fuke is as equally infantile and silly as believing in a "magic fairy" now couldn't I? However, I choose not to as I have faith in someone that has taught me that even the athiest will one day have his/her eyes opened. The lack of belief in a higher power and the accounatbilty in the next life for one's actions that comes with it makes it much easier for someone to accept that abortion is not the act of ending a life. I prefer to believe that I originated from a superior form of life and not an inferior one as the altheist would have me believe. I also believe that someday this "magic fairy" as you call him today while you still draw breath will someday open yours and everyone who has ever existed's eyes to to see that incredible human potential is far greater than the very limited potential an athiest would have us all believe. It's not a mathematical impossibility. The fact that we are here shows that. It might be unlikely, but not as unlikely as being brought into existence by a supreme being. You'll get no disrespect from me with regard to your beliefs, though, while they don't endeavor to affect the lives of others. I don't understand your statement about "preferring" to believe, though. I have no choice in what I believe. I would much prefer to believe in God. Heaven to look forward to, seeing my family again in the afterlife, etc., but I don't get that choice. I believe what I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 I also believe that someday this "magic fairy" as you call him today while you still draw breath will someday open yours and everyone who has ever existed's eyes to to see that incredible human potential is far greater than the very limited potential an athiest would have us all believe. Not every atheist is a doomsayer like WIP. I would guess that most are not. Personally, I believe human potential is limitless, and I don't quite know why you would assume that atheists hold a low view of human potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) It's not a mathematical impossibility. The fact that we are here shows that. It might be unlikely, but not as unlikely as being brought into existence by a supreme being. You'll get no disrespect from me with regard to your beliefs, though, while they don't endeavor to affect the lives of others. I don't understand your statement about "preferring" to believe, though. I have no choice in what I believe. I would much prefer to believe in God. Heaven to look forward to, seeing my family again in the afterlife, etc., but I don't get that choice. I believe what I believe. I disagree, the fact we are here confirms the mathematic odds we exist as we are today just by mere chance very much impossible which pretty much leads us to the alternative which is so hard for atheists to believe.. I prefer to believe in a superior being who designed the universe over some random act of luck. I am not sure what you mean actually. We all have a choice to decide to believe what makes the most sense logically. The fact that you believe in blind luck and not God means you've made a choice. If you believe in the astronomical mathmatical odds of all of this being here by sheer luck then you have much more faith than I do... Edited February 13, 2013 by roy baty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Not every atheist is a doomsayer like WIP. I would guess that most are not. Personally, I believe human potential is limitless, and I don't quite know why you would assume that atheists hold a low view of human potential. True, most athiests I know aren't doomsayers nor did I say that. Perhaps I should be more specific, an athiest believes that an individual's maximum potential ends with his/her's death. I believe that most human being's true potential only just begins in this physical life. I choose to believe what I feel offers far more hope for mankind than just living a life without any further purpose beyond death. I guess we all rationalize things differently. Like I mentioned before, we'll all know after we die who was right or who was wrong and I sleep well at night knowing I will someday meet my athiest friends and family in celebration after death. To each his own, but I think the vast majority of humanity will atttain far more than whatever athiesm can offer.. I believe someday you will believe that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 I disagree, the fact we are here confirms the mathematic odds we exist as we are today just by mere chance very much impossible which pretty much leads us to the alternative which is so hard for atheists to believe.. I prefer to believe in a superior being who designed the universe over some random act of luck. I am not sure what you mean actually. We all have a choice to decide to believe what makes the most sense logically. The fact that you believe in blind luck and not God means you've made a choice. If you believe in the astronomical mathmatical odds of all of this being here by sheer luck then you have much more faith than I do... I don't think we have a choice to believe in anything. We just believe. I could no more choose to believe in a God than I could choose to support Manchester United. It would be nice if I could, they win all the time. But no, I support Bradford City, and believe there is no God. My tough luck, really. No afterlife, no Champions League football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Not every atheist is a doomsayer like WIP. I would guess that most are not. Personally, I believe human potential is limitless, and I don't quite know why you would assume that atheists hold a low view of human potential. No I don't. The problem is that the believers in a cornucopia future - such as yourself, have an irrational faith in tech cures being pulled out like rabbits out of a magician's hat. And saving the future requires that human potential to defer short term benefits for long term gains. In this case, we're talking about very long term; since much of the warming in the world's oceans hasn't made its effects known here on land yet....but it will! So, is the human race willing to defer present resource exploitation (much if not most of it I would argue is causing more harm than good right now) in order to save the future for our species? My latest realization of the last couple of years is that atheists...especially those attached to conventional humanist ideology are irrational about some very important things today. They may not believe in supernatural forces, but they assume that the present path of growth, consumption and waste can just go on indefinitely in the future. Atheists who recognize how wrong some of those who have set themselves up as movement leaders are, are much less judgmental of those following faith-based beliefs. The human potential for destruction is the greatest human potential of all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 No I don't. The problem is that the believers in a cornucopia future - such as yourself, have an irrational faith in tech cures being pulled out like rabbits out of a magician's hat. Nope, there is nothing faith based about it, nor magical. I work every day on developing new technologies. No magic, no faith, just a lot of hard work leading to progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Nope, there is nothing faith based about it, nor magical. I work every day on developing new technologies. No magic, no faith, just a lot of hard work leading to progress. Well, you can also look at history. Hunger, as a problem, is diminishing for example. Yields, and productivity increase over time. And population trends indicate that population growth is slowing and that the earth's population will hit a maximum in this century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Well, you can also look at history. Hunger, as a problem, is diminishing for example. Yields, and productivity increase over time. And population trends indicate that population growth is slowing and that the earth's population will hit a maximum in this century. I would tend to agree... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Well, you can also look at history. Hunger, as a problem, is diminishing for example. Yields, and productivity increase over time. And population trends indicate that population growth is slowing and that the earth's population will hit a maximum in this century. True, as world hunger is not a production problem, but one of distribution. Your point on bending the population curve is more important, but the doomsayers refuse to realize that slower population growth and peak are directly related to the very technology and consumption that they hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) I don't think we have a choice to believe in anything. We just believe. I could no more choose to believe in a God than I could choose to support Manchester United. It would be nice if I could, they win all the time. But no, I support Bradford City, and believe there is no God. My tough luck, really. No afterlife, no Champions League football. Your argument that is way off on some mysterious tangent that makes no sense whatsoever. Good luck "choosing" your next Dr's appointment. Edited February 14, 2013 by roy baty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Well, you can also look at history. Hunger, as a problem, is diminishing for example. Yields, and productivity increase over time. And population trends indicate that population growth is slowing and that the earth's population will hit a maximum in this century. You wouldn't happen to have the source for this information you could provide? Most research I have read indicates the opposite. However, I have to agree with bushcheney the hunger issue is a distribution issue. A distribution issue due to human greed and mis-management.... I know you'll disagree Michael, and that is fine but this is a human trait technology wll never solve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Your argument that is way off on some mysterious tangent that makes no sense whatsoever. Good luck "choosing" your next Dr's appointment. I don't choose Dr's appointments, they choose me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peanutbutter Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 Abortion is a sticky issue. At the core of it abortion is murder, there is no way of getting around that. if the abortion didn't take place the fetus would grow and be born to be a human being. Having an abortion ends that human life. That is undeniable fact. Simple. However I do understand that women cannot be forced to have another human growing inside them against their will. Also a good point but shouldn't these people who don't want babies be taking steps in order to ensure that doesn't happen? Question really should be if we should put term limits on abortions or if we should allow late term and live abortions to continue to be legal in Canada. That's what we should be asking. At the end of the day I don't think any politician of any stripe wants to touch this issue with a ten foot pole and thus nothing will ever change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 Abortion is a sticky issue. At the core of it abortion is murder, there is no way of getting around that. if the abortion didn't take place the fetus would grow and be born to be a human being. Having an abortion ends that human life. That is undeniable fact. Simple.It's a simple undeniable fact that if you don't give up your kidney to someone who needs it, you don't donate blood, you don't give bone marrow, you're murdering someone. If the transplants don't take place then that person dies. There's no getting around that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peanutbutter Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 It's a simple undeniable fact that if you don't give up your kidney to someone who needs it, you don't donate blood, you don't give bone marrow, you're murdering someone. If the transplants don't take place then that person dies. There's no getting around that. It's not the same thing at all. People who are on transplant lists need this surgery to live, people rarely need abortions to live. People need births in order for the baby to live. Abortion ends that chance at life where as surgery saves a life. As I've plainly stated, it's quite simple. Abortion is murder. Murder probably isn't the correct term mind you but I'll use it because I cannot think of a better one. Remove all emotion from the subject. Abortion ends a life, plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 You're confused. The infant needs the mother's body to survive. It's not murder because the mother is simply denying her body to be used as a medical proxy for a person that can't otherwise live on their own. She has every right to deny that and it isn't actively the act of murder any more than refusing to give up your kidney to your sister is murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peanutbutter Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 Like I said, murder in the general meaning of the word, is most likely the incorrect term. I'd like to see some limitations on when a woman can choose to have an abortion, that's all. I'm not talking about taking away a woman's right to choose here, only that the ending of a pregnancy is the ending of a life in the general sense. Surely you cannot disagree with that. Someone refusing to give up a kidney for a loved one would be certainly selfish but I don't think it would equate to murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 Abortion is a sticky issue. At the core of it abortion is murder, there is no way of getting around that.There is a difference between killing and murder. Abortion arguably falls into the former category.I am pro-choice for early term abortions. No person should be forced to take responsibility for a child against their will. I don't see many Christian fundamentalists promising to raise all potential abortuses personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peanutbutter Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 There is a difference between killing and murder. Abortion arguably falls into the former category. I am pro-choice for early term abortions. No person should be forced to take responsibility for a child against their will. I don't see many Christian fundamentalists promising to raise all potential abortuses personally. We're on the same page here for sure. Murder is definitely not the correct term but the pro life camp always uses it and it turns people off, including myself. I don't think it's only Christian fundamentalists but they are the loudest and arguably the most powerful opposition to abortion in North America. Reasonable limits should be set but I doubt any politician has any desire to even talk about this issue, certainly not the current government at any rate. The pro choice camp sees any limits at all the same as an outright ban on abortion and I'm not sure why they do but that's what they scream any time someone tries to talk about it. I don't see how ending late term and live abortions is an attack on a woman's right to choose, I really don't. We have limits in place for all sorts of things, this shouldn't be any different. Surely 4-5 months is enough time for a woman to decide if she wants to bring the child to full term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 I don't see how ending late term and live abortions is an attack on a woman's right to choose, I really don't. . Want to read that back to yourself? Try it this way...: I dont see how placing a limit on a womans right to choose is an attack on a womans right to choose." Thats what you said. Now what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peanutbutter Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 Want to read that back to yourself? Try it this way...: I dont see how placing a limit on a womans right to choose is an attack on a womans right to choose." Thats what you said. Now what? That's not at all what I had posted. Many things in society today have limits on them, I don't see how this should be any different. late term abortions and live abortions should be banned. Women still have plenty of time to choose to end their pregnancy should they so choose. However we cannot even have a grown up discussion about it without the pro life camp screaming. They basically put their fingers in their ears and won't hear anything at all. Putting limits on abortions isn't an attack, it's being reasonable and prudent. I say lets talk about it openly, candidly, responsibly and reasonably as adults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.