Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

[humblesmurph]

You say she has no rights, I'm not sure about that

Really? Just where did I say that?

I'd be willing to bet that I steal, lie and kill less than the average person, including those who view morality as objective.

so you gamble too?
Sorry, i couldn't help myself. '

I've seen this before jlay. On an atheist forum there is this one poster who won't let things drop with a very nice Christian Apologists that frequents the forum. No matter what the Christian Apologists says, this atheist poster takes it as some sort of bashing of atheism or preaching faith. We needn't be like that with one another jlay. You'll find that I am a fair decent person...I believe. If you are unwilling to look past my atheism and pro-choice stance, then I guess ours will continue to be an antagonistic dynamic.

I don't see anything in such way. Just having a debate and discussion. Not sure I understand the, 'let it drop.' When I answer you, you have replied to me and view versa. That's kind of the format things take around here. Why should we look past who you are? We wouldn't expect you to look past who we are? Your worldview and my worldview are essential to the debate.
I assure you that Zoe is an excellent moderator, and if there were any bashing, we would know about it. Saying you are wrong, is not bashing. You saying I am wrong is not bashing. A good fiery debate is not bashing.
It's very simple. If you do not want to be confronted on atheism and pro-choice, simply don't bring them into the arena of debate. If someone else mentions them, you are not obligated to reply.

Back to the steal, lie and kill?
So, it sounds like you would say that you are a good person?
Have you lied? How much lying is too much?

Does God grade on a curve?

Yes, I have gambled.

jlay, atheism and pro-choice is not what defines me. That is not who I am. Those are two positions I hold. When I say let it drop, I don't mean that we shouldn't reply to one another. What I mean is that we have exhausted the fruitfulness of certain topics. Do you have anything new to add to your argument against a woman's right to choose or would you like us to keep repeating ourselves?

I never said you were bashing, I was implying that you thought that I was. I have kept my opinions about Christianity to myself. I have asked a few questions, but I haven't made any negative assertions about you or your faith. There has been nothing fiery coming from my keyboard. This is not a debate, this is a discussion. If you'd like to have a fiery debate, I'm all for it.

I'm not sure that first question is actually a question. It looks like a statement with a question mark accidentally added. Yes, I have lied. I don't know how much lying is too much. I don't know if God grades on a curve, He has never spoken to me.

[humblesmurph]

1. More fudgery.

2. More fudgery.

3. What? Just answer the question.
-
-
-

I'm going out on a limb and assuming you are referring to me. I'm not sure what fudgery is. What question would you like answered?

Edit: Oh, I found it. You'd like to know how I'd react if you slapped my mother. I can't answer that for sure I really don't know. I assume I'd beat you until you died or I got tired, but you may be tougher than the average woman beater.

[jlay]

jlay, atheism and pro-choice is not what defines me. That is not who I am. Those are two positions I hold.

Then what defines you?

BTW, you failed to address:

"You say she has no rights, I'm not sure about that"
Really? Just where did I say that?
Where did I say a pregnant woman has no rights?

Fruitfulness. That all depends if you are going to acknowledge the errors you made regarding the unique personhood of a fetus, biologically speaking. And the errors of defining life based on dependency and size. If not, then you are correct, it is pointless.

FWIW, I don't feel bashed, nor do I feel like you've made any specific negative claims about my faith. I don't see where I've implied such, and don't see any reason for this line of repsonse from you. So please let us proceed.

This is not a debate, this is a discussion. If you'd like to have a fiery debate, I'm all for it.

Let's not quibble over semantics. Fiery is alright by me, as long as it follows board guidelines.

I'm not sure that first question is actually a question. It looks like a statement with a question mark accidentally added. Yes, I have lied. I don't know how much lying is too much. I don't know if God grades on a curve, He has never spoken to me.

I'd like to address this, but let's make sure it is in keeping with the thread. If not, I'll be glad to start a new one. What do you think?

[humblesmurph]

jlay, atheism and pro-choice is not what defines me. That is not who I am. Those are two positions I hold.

Then what defines you?

BTW, you failed to address:

"You say she has no rights, I'm not sure about that"
Really? Just where did I say that?
Where did I say a pregnant woman has no rights?

Fruitfulness. That all depends if you are going to acknowledge the errors you made regarding the unique personhood of a fetus, biologically speaking. And the errors of defining life based on dependency and size. If not, then you are correct, it is pointless.

FWIW, I don't feel bashed, nor do I feel like you've made any specific negative claims about my faith. I don't see where I've implied such, and don't see any reason for this line of repsonse from you. So please let us proceed.

This is not a debate, this is a discussion. If you'd like to have a fiery debate, I'm all for it.

Let's not quibble over semantics. Fiery is alright by me, as long as it follows board guidelines.

I'm not sure that first question is actually a question. It looks like a statement with a question mark accidentally added. Yes, I have lied. I don't know how much lying is too much. I don't know if God grades on a curve, He has never spoken to me.

I'd like to address this, but let's make sure it is in keeping with the thread. If not, I'll be glad to start a new one. What do you think?

What defines me would take a few books worth of words to describe to you. I'm defined by the totality of my thoughts dreams aspirations limitations etc.

You seem intent on having this abortion discussion. Fine. I was wrong, you never said the woman had no rights. By your response, I am now assuming that you think the mother has some rights. I could be wrong again, but I'm sure you'll correct me later. Yes, the fetus is a unique organism. Yes, size is a messy way to define personhood. It does seem to me counter intuitive to say that a fertilized egg is a baby, but for the sake of this argument, I will concede that a fertilized egg is a baby. At best, all we can do is persuade a woman to not kill her baby we can't demand it. This is my general opinion on the abortion:

Ultimately it comes down to the rights of the woman versus the rights of a fetus and enforcement. Let's say the fetus is a full person. The woman is a full person too. How do I have the right to demand that a full person let another full person be a parasite? Let's say we decide to make it illegal because the child is innocent and therefore has more rights than the woman. How do you enforce it? The only way to enforce a no abortion law is to come down on the doctors. However, if real doctors aren't doing abortions then back alley doctors would be. Or women would do it to themselves with hangers or any number of other unspeakable ways. If a woman leaves her child unattended, we can charge her with neglect. How do you charge a woman who has a miscarriage? How would you investigate it? Is abortion wrong? Sure. Should it be illegal? No. I also believe the reasons above are why Christian judges have voted in favor of a woman's right to choose.

It always puzzled me why Christians were so anti-choice. I assume the Bible says nothing about fetuses but it's safe to say that the "little one" is going to heaven under the Christian worldview. The mother, on the other hand, has God as her judge, not us.

The difference between debate and discussion is not a matter of semantics. You and I are operating under different rules. This is a Christian Forum. The best I can do is defend my opinions against attack and question yours. I am not capable of attacking your worldview in the way that you have attacked mine and not break forum rules. That's fine, but don't box a man with one hand behind his back and call it a fair fight.

I say start a new thread. This one has meandered all over the place.

[Kurieuo]

I wonder what the unborn babies would say if they had a choice?

You make a valid point. The point I was trying to make is that a strong opinion or a visceral repulsion doesn't equal moral objectivity. We likely agree on 99% of moral issues. However, there are points on which we clearly disagree, like a woman's right to choose. Does that mean that God hasn't put goodness in my heart? Or yours?

I agree with someone's right to choice. However, there are social laws to protect us against choices of people wishing to harm or take advantage of us.

For example, there is no violation of preventing my "right" to choice of killing someone else, because it is not my "right" to do so in the first place. There are social laws which protect born babies, so that it is no longer a mother's or parent's right to choose to take their child's life. Would you agree to a mother's choice to kill her newly born infant?

Does a birth canal really make all the difference and change who the baby is? Think on this question logically. One must present very good reasons as to why it is alright to kill the baby in utero, but not once on the outside. Either it is alright to kill them in both instances, or it is not alright.

You keep restating mother's right, pro-choice... but pro-women's right on what? To kill a child? Really.

You never did deal with my response above HS. I believe my pro-life stance is more pro-choice than your own.

[humblesmurph]

I wonder what the unborn babies would say if they had a choice?

You make a valid point. The point I was trying to make is that a strong opinion or a visceral repulsion doesn't equal moral objectivity. We likely agree on 99% of moral issues. However, there are points on which we clearly disagree, like a woman's right to choose. Does that mean that God hasn't put goodness in my heart? Or yours?

I agree with someone's right to choice. However, there are social laws to protect us against choices of people wishing to harm or take advantage of us.

For example, there is no violation of preventing my "right" to choice of killing someone else, because it is not my "right" to do so in the first place. There are social laws which protect born babies, so that it is no longer a mother's or parent's right to choose to take their child's life. Would you agree to a mother's choice to kill her newly born infant?

Does a birth canal really make all the difference and change who the baby is? Think on this question logically. One must present very good reasons as to why it is alright to kill the baby in utero, but not once on the outside. Either it is alright to kill them in both instances, or it is not alright.

You keep restating mother's right, pro-choice... but pro-women's right on what? To kill a child? Really.

You never did deal with my response above HS. I believe my pro-life stance is more pro-choice than your own.

The fetus get's it's life from the mother. The fetus doesn't eat. The fetus doesn't breath air. The fetus only get's what the mother gives it. It's not the same as a real child because the real child isn't only dependent on the mother. If a woman who is one month pregnant dies, her fetus dies too. If a woman with a one month old baby dies, the baby is unaffected. If you think that a fetus is the exact same thing as a baby and the fact that the fetus is inseparably dependent on the mother doesn't matter, I don't know what else to say. Taking that logic to it's conclusion, rape victims who get pregnant have to carry their assailant's child to term. The very thought of a woman having to do that makes my stomach turn. Almost as much as women having unsafe self abortions.

For the sake of brevity. Yes, abortion is murder. It is absolutely positively an act of baby killing. Now that we've settled that, do you think it should be illegal? If so, how do you plan to enforce it? How do you investigate a suspected abortion? Are we really supposed to put every women up in stirrups every time they have a miscarriage? You can only make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions. You can't ever make a woman keep a child/fetus/little one she doesn't want.

We can easily enforce a law that says mothers can't kill their children outside the womb. Mothers have been convicted of killing their children many times. A kid goes missing, people ask questions, an investigation ensues, mommy goes to jail.

[jlay]

Attack?
Certainly the board is a Christian board, but I wouldn't describe anyone here as 'attacking' you, or your worldview. Questioning? Yes. Challenging? Yes.

However, if real doctors aren't doing abortions then back alley doctors would be. Or women would do it to themselves with hangers or any number of other unspeakable ways. If a woman leaves her child unattended, we can charge her with neglect. How do you charge a woman who has a miscarriage?

Do people break laws? Yes. Should we get rid of laws against murder because people murder anyway? Should we get rid of speed limits since people break them anyway? Should we legalize drunk driving, since people do it anyway? The answer to all these questions is, of course not.
I hope this example helps you see how faulty your logic is in regards to woman obtaining abortions through illegal channels. Either abortion is wrong or it is right. If it is wrong, it should be illegal, regardless of how many women would break the law to get one. And when I say wrong, I mean is it a violation of personhood.
Miscarriage: Why would you charge a woman who had a miscarriage? I don't understand this at all. You do know how murder is defined do you not? How would you investigate? Not sure.
Did you know about 50% of murders go unsolved. Would you suggest we make murder legal since we have a 50% failure rate in bringing murderers to justice? I don't think you would.

The woman is a full person too. How do I have the right to demand that a full person let another full person be a parasite?

You really think of an unborn child as a parasite? That is just disturbing. No one is questioning the personhood of the woman. The question is, once another person is inside her, what are the rights of the unborn? What responsibilities does she have?

Is abortion wrong? Sure. Should it be illegal?

I'm a little confused here. You admit abortion is wrong, but it shouldn't be illegal? If we can't make sound laws from knowing right and wrong, then why should we be interested in knowing right and wrong?

The fetus get's it's life from the mother. The fetus doesn't eat. The fetus doesn't breath air. The fetus only get's what the mother gives it.

You've just described a child. You've also described an invalid. Do you view handicapped people as less human? What about people who are on oxygen, feeding tubes, or prescription meds?

Taking that logic to it's conclusion, rape victims who get pregnant have to carry their assailant's child to term. The very thought of a woman having to do that makes my stomach turn.

It makes mine turn too. It is a most tragic situation. But, why would you punish the child for the crimes of the father? That isn't logical. Kill the unborn, because his/her dad is a criminal?

For the sake of brevity. Yes, abortion is murder. It is absolutely positively an act of baby killing. Now that we've settled that, do you think it should be illegal? If so, how do you plan to enforce it? How do you investigate a suspected abortion? Are we really supposed to put every women up in stirrups every time they have a miscarriage? You can only make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions. You can't ever make a woman keep a child/fetus/little one she doesn't want.

Those are all things that have to be worked out. Your are correct. We could never irradicate abortion by making it illegal. Just as you can not irradicate theft, murder, and myriad of other crimes by passing a law.

[zoegirl]

Of course even if we were attacking you, we are in our moral rights to do so

[humblesmurph]

jlay, I know the definition of murder. That isn't applicable, because by that definition, abortion isn't murder. We aren't working with the accepted definition of murder for this discussion. abortion=murder for the sake of this discussion.

The only difference between a miscarriage and an abortion is intent. If you abort a pregnancy on purpose, it's an abortion. If it aborts accidentally, it's a miscarriage.

I'm not saying that it would be hard to catch a woman who had an abortion, I'm saying it is impossible. A law that is impossible to enforce is no law at all. There are ways to prove murder and theft. There simply isn't a way to prove a woman intentionally ended her pregnancy. It would be a law with a 0% conviction rate.

[jlay]

The only difference between a miscarriage and an abortion is intent. If you abort a pregnancy on purpose, it's an abortion. If it aborts accidentally, it's a miscarriage.

That's uh.......quite a difference, don't you think. The mother's body naturally rejecting the fetus, versus a butcher invading the womb and violently ripping apart the unborn child. Gosh, hardly any difference at all. (sarcasm)

There simply isn't a way to prove a woman intentionally ended her pregnancy.

I would disagree, but it doesn't matter in regards to our conversation.
Not murder? Here are a couple of definitions.
Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

I'm not saying that it would be hard to catch a woman who had an abortion, I'm saying it is impossible. A law that is impossible to enforce is no law at all.

You really are missing the point. The point of the law would be to end abortion on demand. To stop disquising it as a 'medical procedure.' Outlawing abortion would save millions of lives. Millions. That's a fact. Laws are not laws because of how many convictions they merit.

[humblesmurph]

jlay, I get your point. I'm smarter than you seem to think. I always get your point. I may not agree, but you haven't stated anything too difficult to grasp. I know you want to outlaw abortion as a medical procedure. That likely isn't happening for reasons already explained.

At the risk of a ban, I have to ask a question I've wanted to ask since this was brought up. If you think abortion is murder, what are you doing about it? I don't know if I could live in a country where state sanctioned murder happens on such a grand scale that the Nazis would blush. If you aren't willing to fight, I mean physically fight, for the lives of the little ones, then what is worth fighting for? All those Christians in foreign countries fighting over oil, and nobody fighting for the children? Do any of you have any friends or family members who had abortions? How do you treat them? I'd turn my back on my own sister if she killed a child in cold blood.

[zoegirl]

We vote our conscious, we volunteer for Crisis Pregnancy centers, we financially help those women who have their children...we counsel women who have depression because they did have an abortion (an amazingly high number of women suffer after an abortion).

I have gone down to the March for LIfe many, many times. I educate my students about the development of the baby and the fact that it is a separate life.

Some choose to block clinics and talk to women and try to talk them out of them.

Others (and I would disagree vehemently with these methods) do use violence. They do view this as a war and bomb and commit acts of violence.

[humblesmurph]

We vote our conscious, we volunteer for Crisis Pregnancy centers, we financially help those women who have their children...we counsel women who have depression because they did have an abortion (an amazingly high number of women suffer after an abortion).

I have gone down to the March for LIfe many, many times. I educate my students about the development of the baby and the fact that it is a separate life.

Some choose to block clinics and talk to women and try to talk them out of them.

Others (and I would disagree vehemently with these methods) do use violence. They do view this as a war and bomb and commit acts of violence.

zoegirl, would you counsel a woman who strangled her 2 year old child?

[Kurieuo]

Even if we were inconsistent on a practical level with our pro-life views on the unborn, our inconsistency in no way impacts upon the status of the unborn and who they are.

You say abortion is undoubtedly killing a baby. I am puzzled then as to how can you therefore support or attempt to defend it. Is it simply because a great many Christian people oppose it, and ultimately you see this as an issue of fundamentalism or something other which puts you offside? I'm confused.

I know you're not Christian, but this is not a Christian issue.

I encourage you to have a read of the following website: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

[humblesmurph]

Even if we were inconsistent on a practical level with our pro-life views on the unborn, our inconsistency in no way impacts upon the status of the unborn and who they are.

You say abortion is undoubtedly killing a baby. I am puzzled then as to how can you therefore support or attempt to defend it. Is it simply because a great many Christian people oppose it, and ultimately you see this as an issue of fundamentalism or something other which puts you offside? I'm confused.

I know you're not Christian, but this is not a Christian issue.

I encourage you to have a read of the following website: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

I know your actions in no way affect the facts of the matter. I just wonder why there aren't funerals for miscarried babies and pregnant women with one child always say they have one with one on the way instead of saying they have two children. I wonder why so many parents wait until their children are born before they give them names. I think that people on both sides of the issue are a little desensitized to what is really going on. Atheists and the vast majority of Jews Christians and Muslims look at people who bomb abortion clinics as nuts but it seems to me that they have things in proper perspective. People are walking children into buildings and murdering them. If I saw I woman walking a two year old child to her death I would stop her if I could. I know this isn't a Christian issue per se, they just seem to be making the most noise about it.

I've given my reasons why I support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. You just don't like them. I'm trying to figure out if you really think that this is a black and white issue or if you are just pretending for the sake of a better cause. It appears fetuses are only treated like real babies when we want to tell a woman what to do with her body. This lack of consistency is troubling for me.

Just to clarify, I don't think that abortion is murder in the same way as you. I thought that was clear, sorry for the confusion. If I thought it was murder in the same way as you, I'd likely be hanging out with the folks bombing the clinics.