You should have been arrested for assault.

Not if her friend didn’t want to press charges, she shouldn’t have been. Her friend didn’t even want to file charges and then drop them. She was happy to have been “assaulted”.

Personally, I’d love to see you go up to that little girl and say, “Your mother’s friends restrained your mother so that you could be born, and that was wrong of them – they should have been arrested and your mother should have been allowed to abort you.”

It’s true atheists have no one to feel “gratitude” to. But then, I guess that’s all the more reason to doubt, that is, why would a creator being “bless” me with such a decent life, and so many others live a tortured existence.

As far as humility, you don’t need God for that, just look at the universe.

Odd. I feel the exact same way about the other end of the spectrum. That is, continuous justification to oneself of the exsistence of a higher being despite there being no evidence of such a thing.

I can’t claim “continuous justification” regarding existence based on evidence. I admit that I have my moments. But I made a conscience decision long ago, that my lucid moments of “gratitude,” “humility,” (and the acceptance that I cannot control the majority of factors in my existence) is enough for me to put my eggs in one basket. For lack of a better word, I call my basket “faith.”

Continuous refusal to acknowledge a power greater than oneself is a journey too tiring and futile for my taste.

Odd. I feel the exact same way about the other end of the spectrum. That is, continuous justification to oneself of the exsistence of a higher being despite there being no evidence of such a thing.

“We need to legalize the destruction of human life to protect women from stupidly shoving foreign objects into themselves in an attempt to terminate their own pregnancies”.

Sadly, this is pretty much the sum of the argument.

I can counter with pictures of women who bled to death from shoving coathangers and knitting needles up their vaginas in desperate attempts to abort before Roe vs. Wade became legal.

And why were they so “desperate” to terminate said pregnancies?

This has to be one of the worst arguments for legalized abortion yet.

“We need to legalize the destruction of human life to protect women from stupidly shoving foreign objects into themselves in an attempt to terminate their own pregnancies”.

There are some out there…can’t say who…that would say that these women deserve it for doing something just so freaking STUPID as shoving SHARP foreign objects into their ueteruses in an attempt to terminate a life.

But then I would imagine such things as NOT doing something as insanely foolish as that would escape you.

Me, and just me, in every sense of the word. If I am wrong, then I would argue that I am faultless and this “God” should explain himself to me, afteall, He did create me.

I admire your confidence, but I have to believe that even demigods have doubts sometimes.

Mine are usually during those infrequent moments when life quickly flashes right in front of me…or while reading world history and I can fully realize how insignificant my personal rationalizations and feelings are in the greater scheme of things.

Who was that Greek dude who kept pushing a boulder up a mountain?

Continuous refusal to acknowledge a power greater than oneself is a journey too tiring and futile for my taste.

Uncle… ?

I do try to detach myself from emotional arguments. Suffice it to say: I envision a world where amputees can have limbs again, a world where anti-rejection meds are a thing of the past, and maybe, just maybe, death itself can be defeated on some level. If this makes me immoral, then so be it.

Is that you or your conscience asking??

Me, and just me, in every sense of the word. If I am wrong, then I would argue that I am faultless and this “God” should explain himself to me, afteall, He did create me.

BrianNY:

-Some of us reject the book outright, feeling that we alone have all the right answers.

Was that me? *smile*

Is that you or your conscience asking??

zeroangel said:
Purplepeep:

Let’s agree to disagree.

No!! You have to cry “Uncle”!!!

Earlier I had formulated an analogy of my own involving something along the lines of a combat situation where the possibility of “collateral damage” existed but would still save other lives.

If something along theses lines comes up again – a fair bet to take – you can refine it and run it up the flagpole again. I can see where you could maybe somehow or another validly use a police hostage situation to illustrate moral criteria involved in making a difficult decision.

many of the folks that post here are intelligent enough not to need analogies like we are discussing to think about this issue. Afterall, this is a “real life” issue.

But there are core values that underlie and determine how folks think on any given issue. An analogy is just one tool to help us clarify our core values intellectually. It’s sometimes easier to do so when they’re examined removed from the context of an emotional-laden issue. (Of course, if a commenter had been accidently shot by a hunter that might complicate things, lol.)

I don’t believe I have called any other person on this forum “evil” to date (not that you were suggesting that). I think its important to be civil, otherwise, it’s really pointless to talk.

Awww, shut up you little jerk!
(j/k & using a McCain response, to boot.)

Let’s agree to disagree.

Earlier I had formulated an analogy of my own involving something along the lines of a combat situation where the possibility of “collateral damage” existed but would still save other lives. I decided that it just wasn’t worth it because, as you say, I won’t convince anyone (furthermore, it really wasn’t wholly accurate either).

Regardless, many of the folks that post here are intelligent enough not to need analogies like we are discussing to think about this issue. Afterall, this is a “real life” issue.

I don’t believe I have called any other person on this forum “evil” to date (not that you were suggesting that). I think its important to be civil, otherwise, it’s really pointless to talk.

Really? Banning post-conception birth control isn’t extreme? The anti-choice movement won’t go after Plan B and IUDs because they know if they do, they’ll lose most of their support.

The anti-choice movement values power and influence more than zygotes. Which is why Plan B is forever safe.

It’s time to rise up and end contraception and abortion, Rusty. Both are evil, and so would any action to drive a woman to a state where she can get an abortion.

In such a case, I would question your motives there anyways.

On August 7th, 2008 at 7:51 pm, zeroangel said:
purplepeep:

Are we solely discussing “shoot – don’t shoot” or is your analogy meant to apply to the topic of this thread?

I employed the hunting scenerio in reference as to which argument is of superior morality, ZA. (Although it could also go to common sense.) It’s a simple matter of determining which advice the person would be best advised to heed with the information given.

(If you’ve ever known or heard of a farmer taking a round while just out walking his land that’ll help lead to the correct conclusion.)

You’re welcome to come up with your own scenerio to offer up for folks to puzzle over in the next pro-anti-abort comment thread to come along. This one has pretty much run it’s course.

For me – and to my thinkin’, at least – I think it’s helpful to pose real-life analogies that reflect core questions of a controversial topic.

It’s not likely having at the topic itself will result in too many “conversions” one way or another, giving something for folks to mull over seems a better route to me. Otherwise too often it can turn into good folks railing at one another personally on whatever topic. Someone can be wrong without having to be evil scum o’ the earth.
(Of course, I reserve the right to pick on anyone sans mercy at anytime)