It is continuously amazing how mortal individuals, who don't know why they are here, what happens after death, and barely even grasp this world, let alone the billions of galaxies throughout the universe, and who ignore God, and think their opinion has any meaning in the scale of spacetime existence that even numbs the minds of the greatest scientists, are suddenly experts on the ways of God. You assume "innocent." You assume your belief set has any relevance. What is the foundation of you being a judge, again? [/QUOTE] we look at what this God says and compare it with what we see. most thinking people are repulsed by what seems to me a tyrant. in america we dont worship tyrants. we put a boot up their ass(toby keith).
Quote from vhehn: we look at what this God says and compare it with what we see. most thinking people are repulsed by what seems to me a tyrant. in america we dont worship tyrants. we put a boot up their ass(toby keith). "We?" Do you have a tapeworm? "Compare it with what you see?" "What seems to you?" What makes you think you can see anything? Until there is any evidence you are able to deal with universal or infinite things, then you have no capacity to judge something well beyond you. Before you can judge the infinite, let us see if you can perform much lower level tasks such as UNDERSTAND infinite things: 1) Please give a well-thought out explanation for WHY (not HOW) we are here. Not opinion or belief. Provide a good explanation that will put this issue to rest for humanity. 2) Solve the mystery of what is the nature of dark matter and dark energy. 3) Explain why these "thinking people in America" cannot solve something as basic as an alternative to hydrocarbon fuels, cancer, or even a modest 20-50 year extension to our lifespans? You say God is a tyrant. I say that you, like all the rest of us, are a blind, clueless, multicellular organism that has very little grasp on the nature of things. You have no more capacity to judge God, then you have to jump more than a couple of feet off the Earth unaided. So all you can really offer is unfounded opinion, backed up by continuous gumming.
doesnt matter. you can put up all the strawman arguments you want to. biblegod by his own admission is a cruel vindictive monster. i would never worship such a being even if it actually existed.
Run a DNA test on that mass of cells you are advocating killing, then tell me if it is her own body. magicdust
Glad to hear that you've seen the error in that way of thinking. Let's face it, Pabst. You've shown in the past that you're not up to carrying the moral load necessary to treat other people in the same way that you would have them treat you. We have shown conclusively in these threads that your tendency to generalize your feelings about certain members of a group to all members of that group represents a master class in the essentials of bigotry. In this case, we have much the same situation. I personally would not want any woman who carried my child to have an abortion. However, I do not presume for a minute that my personal preferences should inform legislation which prevents any woman from controlling her own destiny. It is difficult to fight for the rights of someone whose actions, although distasteful to you, must be protected in order to maintain the ideals we cherish. Much easier to do what you do - take the lazy man's way out. The idea that one's personal preferences should be mapped on to all of society is a hallmark of the faith-based propaganada units that seek to 'remake Western culture in a manner more consistent with theistic ideals'. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you would be unable to see the philosophical errors involved in denying a woman the right to choose. Perhaps you could go have a bitch session with the Neo-Nazi scum you admire so much.
Hope is a lovely thing. Here's the truth. In a few hundred years we will have pharmacological technology which will allow a woman to have complete, 100% effective same-night or next day control over her fertility. The ham-handed propaganada implicit in the phrase 'ripping the fetus from her body' will be made irrelevant. 200 years is probably wildly pessimistic. The whole issue will fade away. Yes, abstinence. Not a surprising comment. Let's not let reality get in the way of a good old fashioned sermon from the pulpit. Have you guys ever heard of the United Church? Now those are my kind of Christians. Y'all could learn something from them. Maybe they only occur up here.
Wait, don't tell me. The fetus isn't hers, it's God's creation. Right or wrong? If your point is that a man has 1/2 the say in what should happen to the fetus, don't worry. A chromosomal male will give birth to a baby in the not terribly distant future. In the meantime, you'll have to live with the vagaries of evolution. Hope that's not a dirty word for you.
Yes, a capiatialist solution would solve much of the problem. There would be a moral issue of selling humans. The goverment as usual has provided its own economics for babies born to single mothers. The "payoff" between wellfare, healthcare and housing subsidies totals close to $200k over 18 years.