Re: the new poll.

I have always believed that God and science can co-exist. In fact, it has to be so because science obviously exists and I believe in God--anyone who does would have to realize that.

If God created everything, then God created science. Science, I believe, was put there by God to give us humans the ability to understand things in the world. It is a great gift!

Thank God for science. I mean, I hate science, but I'm sure it makes lots of people happy, so for their sakes I am grateful for it.

I have resolved to praise God 100 times a day, or try to. So much good has happened in the past week that I know God had a hand in. But now I'm not talking about the poll. I'm just happy.

My answer doesn't really fit into any of the available choices. I say that God created the universe and humanity, but I have no idea when or how, and I don't care when or how. I don't believe it makes any difference when or how it happened.

I just think it's funny that if you look at Inherit the Wind, it's all about evolutionists fighting for the right to teach their ideas along with the ideas of the creationists. Now the modern evolutionists demand that any traces of creationism be removed from the schools. It's very much like the fact that the original American schools sought to teach children to read specifically so that they could read the Bible, and now the Bible is banned from our public schools.

John, you're a Pennsylvanian too? *high five*

:)

John --

Now the modern evolutionists demand that any traces of creationism be removed from the schools.

You're confusing biologists with non-Christians.

It was the non-Christians who removed every trace of the Biblical creation story from public schools, because they don't believe in the Bible and should have every right to send their kids to public school without having them indoctrinated with Christianity.

Scientists and biologists want evolution taught in science classes because evolution is science. It's as much a part of science as the theory of relativity or the theory of plate tectonics.

The effort to jam Biblical creationism in to science classes is bound to fail, because Biblical creationism is not science. It is not observable and not testable. It has nothing to do with science.

But you're dead wrong about the Bible being "banned from schools." As an elective, it's perfectly constitutional to teach Bible courses in public schools.

Leah,

I totally agree...except for the hating science part. I find it very interesting. I mean breaking down cells and figuring out how they work is SO amazing. I really think it is a miracle any of us are here, because it seems like a lot of things have to be working perfectly in order for that to happen. God was pretty smart when He was putting this whole thing together. :)

And yet the 'reality' remains that our American school system was started in order to teach children how to read the Bible. Now the Bible is barely accessible in schools, though in *SOME* schools it is a part of some electives.

You have to admit that our school system has lost its original purpose. Well, actually, I don't expect you to admit it. We allow a tiny minority of hateful atheists like you to control what is or is not taught in schools, and that's rather absurd. Instead than forcing your values on the rest of the nation, you should go start your own atheist private schools. Of course, that would never work, since atheists typically don't give a damn and wouldn't go to the trouble of opening schools, hospitals, etc. That doesn't stop them from trying to control those institutions started by caring individuals, however.

Jill, I think you are leaving out a potentially significant group of respondents by not including the option "I don't know, it's not important to me". (Unless you intentionally don't want those respondents included, which is possible.)

Jill, I think you are leaving out a potentially significant group of respondents by not including the option "I don't know, it's not important to me".

Without it, you may be getting skewed results due to "uneducated guesses". (Mine being one of them.) Ha ha.

Actually, the Bible has no right being in public schools. As many religious people there are in America, we're still a secular nation. We do not have an official nation. Our founding fathers were mostly deists.

Besides, it doesn't make sense logically, since we have Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, random branches of Christianity, Jews, and so forth.... if you put the Bible in school, who gets to be "right"? Why shouldn't we also teach atheism in school? And preach from the Koran and Torah?

Intelligent Design is not science, it has not been proven in any measurable way, it is merely an unsubstantiated hypothesis that can never reach theory status. End of story.

Oops, I rephrased my post, and didn't realize the first had gone through! Oh well!

Instead than forcing your values on the rest of the nation, you should go start your own atheist private schools.

That's the ticket!! Start their own schools! Maybe they could even start their own atheisticcountry somewhere so they could live "happily ever after" in their godlessness and leave the rest of us alone.

That's what they want, right? Or do they want to force the rest of of to "choose" atheism? What's happening to OUR freedom of Choice????

Edyt: Besides, it doesn't make sense logically, since we have Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, random branches of Christianity, Jews, and so forth.... if you put the Bible in school, who gets to be "right"? Why shouldn't we also teach atheism in school? And preach from the Koran and Torah

You are too preoccupied with who "gets to be right". Growing up in a two religion household can do that to a person, but it doesn't mean you have to forgo ALL religion because you're not sure which is best. God doesn't ask us to be perfect, just to Love HIM.

Personally, I think we are teaching atheism in school already. Isn't atheism just the absence of God? That can be taught by default.

John, You got me goin' today...I'm going to blame you. Ha ha.
I have to go out for a while. Ciao.

After the relatively stunning statements of Sen Obama in California that surfaced yesterday, about his view of the hard working middle classes (i.e., "clinging to guns and religion and antipathy to those who are not like them" due to "their bitterness"), my guess is that his gaffe score will slide waaaaay to the right. Even Jimmy Hoffa with the Teamsters should be appauled at that one. Maybe even some buyers regret among Obama superdelegates who defected from the Hillary camp, and a "return for an exchange" for maybe several of them. "Shame on you, Barack."

I think what Obama said is true. Maybe that's why I support him so strongly

What's happening to OUR freedom of Choice????

You do get your freedom of choice! You do NOT get to push your CHOICE on other people!

You are too preoccupied with who "gets to be right". Growing up in a two religion household can do that to a person, but it doesn't mean you have to forgo ALL religion because you're not sure which is best. God doesn't ask us to be perfect, just to Love HIM.

I didn't grow up in a two-religion household. My father was Catholic and converted to non-denominational protestantism when he married my mother.

I grew up in a SOCIETY where Muslims and Christians were fairly equally represented. And I don't feel that I should have to suffocate their religious beliefs because you think YOURS are the right ones.

I'm not against teaching religion in schools. But not in science class. And not just Christianity.

Personally, I think we are teaching atheism in school already. Isn't atheism just the absence of God? That can be taught by default.

Hahahaha. I thought morals were supposed to be taught in the home. If you're not doing a good job educating your children about religion, don't expect other people to do it for you!

You do get your freedom of choice! You do NOT get to push your CHOICE on other people!

Like I said, Edyt you're the perfect illustration of a hypocrite because that's precisely what you are doing, pushing your choice on others, not only to the unborn but also onto us. It's the way the world works.

Who has the power Edyt? You said it's all about that. But you don't like to be on the receiving end, because it seems wrong - doesn't it?

You want to deal with others on a morally relative basis when you're in control, but you want others to deal with you on an morally objective basis when you're the victim.

You want choice? Perfect. You have choice.
Do unto others as you have them do unto you.

Obey it but don't expect it if you reject it.

If you want to exert power then be ready to be subject to power. And absolute power - such as killing the child within corrupts absolutely.

Secular Humanism is a recognized religion and that is what is being pushed at schools and this is what you demand from us - that we accept your moral relativity regarding the humanity of the unborn. Two Jewish researchers found that 54% of the professors at American universities discriminated heavily against Evangelical Christians. That's not very tolerant.

Not everyone can be right Edyt. Tolerance means disagreement of ideas, but respect for others. Or as my daughter says, "People are equal, but ideas aren't".

The more you rant and rage, the more I can provide object lessons about how and why moral relativity is bankrupt, how it corrupts the very soul of a person.

Hahahaha. I thought morals were supposed to be taught in the home. If you're not doing a good job educating your children about religion, don't expect other people to do it for you!

You're right, Edyt.

We talk about you at my house. One college student and two high-schoolers. We talk about your moral relativity, about your fascist contradictory viewpoints. About how you believe infanticide has been made "obsolete" by abortion, but that there's no moral difference between killing an unborn in the womb, or moving her 6 inches. We discuss how your love has grown cold, but also how fragile and human you are. We wonder what must've happened to you to bring you to such a point.

We also talk about dignity and respect, and how we need to be sensitive to others, even if they aren't sensitive themselves, simply because we never know how broken they might be inside.

And although you have been an amazing illustration of moral relativity, every once in a while we see a glimmer of something that we recognize, and we keep wondering if you'll see it.

Yes - We're teaching morals at home. Just thought I'd let you know.

Yikes! I don't like being talked about at other peoples' dinner tables! I take issue with people who think something terrible must have happened to someone because they hold different views. My parents were and are loving, supportive and involved. We always had enough food and money. I had tons of friends. And...I'm pro choice. I wasn't abandoned or abused and my soul has not died.
The main reason I support a woman's right to choose is that if we make it illegal, women will still want abortions and have to go to dangerous extremes to get them (and heeere come the stats about the lack of back alley abortions, bla blaa). Sooo could I say that by being adamant about abolishing Roe v. Wade YOU must have had a soul-crushing childhood because you want women to have unsafe medical procedures and potentially die because of it? (Note: I don't think this involves being merely pro life- I respect that)
Note 2: This did not come out as eloquently as I wanted.

I grew up in a SOCIETY where Muslims and Christians were fairly equally represented. And I don't feel that I should have to suffocate their religious beliefs because you think YOURS are the right ones.

I'm not against teaching religion in schools. But not in science class. And not just Christianity.

Personally, I think we are teaching atheism in school already. Isn't atheism just the absence of God? That can be taught by default.

Hahahaha. I thought morals were supposed to be taught in the home. If you're not doing a good job educating your children about religion, don't expect other people to do it for you!

Edyt: People of different religion can still share common morals. Since children are in school for about 7 hours a day, isn't that an opportune time to teach morals? Would we have fewer school shootings if children were taught the ten commandments?

I wasn't joking about starting your own schools or your own country. Isn't that what you want? Kind of like the pilgrims?

Which 10 Commandments? The ones from Exodus 20 or Exodus 34?

Exodus 34
The New Stone Tablets
1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2 Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. 3 No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain."
4 So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the LORD had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. 5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

8 Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped. 9 "O Lord, if I have found favor in your eyes," he said, "then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance."

10 Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. 11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. [a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

17 "Do not make cast idols.

18 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.
"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

21 "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

22 "Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. [b] 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.

25 "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.

26 "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.
"Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

Whatever. Twist the words to mean what you want them to, isn't that the way the Bible is read these days?

PS: Why is it only Christianity's morals that get to be represented? Why not also represent the Koran's messages too?

“The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah’s Cause.”
(9:88)
“Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (9:5)

“The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.” (9:112)

“Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.” (9:29)

“Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.” (8:39)

Which 10 Commandments?

The Ten Commandments
Catholic Version

I.
I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!

II.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain!

III.
Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day!

IV.
Honor your father and your mother!

V.
You shall not kill!

VI.
You shall not commit adultery!

VII.
You shall not steal!

VIII.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor!

IX.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife!

X.
You shall not covet your neighbor's goods!

Why are you so cynical? It's very sad.

PS: Why is it only Christianity's morals that get to be represented? Why not also represent the Koran's messages too?

“The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah’s Cause.”
(9:88)
“Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (9:5)

“The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.” (9:112)

“Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.” (9:29)

“Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.” (8:39)

Is that what you want? Preaching hatred and violence among disbelievers? I don't condone it. I wouldn't preach it to anyone.
I prefer these ten I listed above. Not so much blood.

Okay, so assuming the Ten Commandments actually are the previous list (although it clearly states in the Bible that the Ten Commandments are listed at Exodus 34) what relevance do the first three have to a nonbeliever/Muslim/Buddhist/etc?

And while we're at it, let's bring back Biblical punishments for all those commandments!
(Commandment 1)
Deuteronomy 17:1-5 “And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heavens, which I have not commanded. Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing and shalt stone them with stones, till they die”.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10, “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God."

Exodus 22:20 “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed”.

And from the New Testament:

Mark 16:16 “He that believeth not, shall be damned”.

(Commandment 2)

Deuteronomy 27: 1 5 “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.” (No more art classes and fingerpaintings of mommy and daddy!)

(Commandment 3)
Leviticus 24:16 “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death”

From the New Testament:
Matthew 12:32 “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come”.

Mark 3:29 “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgivness, but is in danger of eternal damnation”.

(Commandment 4)
Exodus 31:15 “Whosoever shall work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death”.

Numbers 15:32 “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day…And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”

(Commandment 5)
Exodus 21:15-17 “And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death”.

Exodus 21:17 “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death”.

(Commandment 6)

Strangely enough "thou shalt not kill" has no punishment... Of course, that's obvious, since God wants you to kill people for disobeying all the other commandments.

(Commandment 7)

Leviticus 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death”.

Have I proven my point yet?

ali - first, my response to Edyt is based on about a month of discussion. She argues, sometimes with horrible insensitivity, that a woman has sovereign rights to her body, and such rights override the right to life of the child. In other words, she acknowledges the unborn child is a human being who can be executed because of where she is located.

This is a morally subjective (relative) position, because we don't kill toddlers or other humans based on where they are. So Edyt is arguing that the unborn are the "property", like slaves, of their mother, who has the sole discretion of execution or "termination" of them.

When a woman consents to sex, she prima facie consents to the risk of pregnancy - that's consistent with a woman's nature and completely expected. The fact that contraceptives are sold, distributed and taught, even by Planned Parenthood, indicates pregnancy can happen.

So Edyt argues human beings are property to be disposed of as the mother wishes, but she would object to being taken as a sex slave in another country.

That's morally relative, because she wants to choose when morality is subjective, and when it's objective. Subjectively, location matters when she wants to kill a human being - a child, who is precisely where she should be, but objectively location doesn't matter when Edyt is taken as a sex slave in another country.

Morally, location doesn't change how we treat other human beings, because if it does, it means we aren't all equal. There would be no way of telling the sex-slave trader he was wrong. I think you agree that we're all equal, and that we would treat each and every human being with the full measure of dignity and rights they deserve, including life.

If you don't think all human beings are equal and intrinsically valuable, may I put you down as being in favor of sex slaves?

The main reason I support a woman's right to choose is that if we make it illegal, women will still want abortions and have to go to dangerous extremes to get them (and heeere come the stats about the lack of back alley abortions, bla blaa).

Bank robbery is illegal, but do we make it safe for robbers to hold up banks? I think self-induced abortion is horrible. Illegal abortions, which still happen, are horrible. But why do you believe consensus of safety should change the legality and morality of abortion?

If the unborn are not full human beings, then their removal would be of no greater significance than having a tooth pulled, but if they are intrinsically valuable human beings, like you and I, then no justification can be made for their murder. That's a paraphrase of Greg Koukl.

Scientifically the unborn are human beings. Morally, the only differences between the unborn and the born are size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency. None of these factors

Lastly, if you argue the unborn is human, but not a moral agent, because sentience and self-awareness isn't there then everyone who's knocked unconscious is no longer human. Please don't use the UDDA as a basis, because death is a ceasing of development of the human body, while the unborn are still intrinsically developing sentience and thought.

Most people who are pro-choice have rather selfish motivations for maintaining the status quo, and are intellectually lazy when it comes to defending their morality. They simply assume they are right.

In any other venue we'd call that bigotry. Because that's what it is.

ali - look into the matter, do deep research from both sides, especially when it comes to the medical. I will tell you I make an exception for the life of the mother on the grounds that it is better to save one life than to lose both. Morally this is defensible as an unintended effect of saving the life of the mother, so the specific intention is not to kill the child, but that is an unintended consequence when saving the mother's life.

Okay, before I respond, Chris, you're going to have to make your link from "consenting to have sex" to "sex slave" a little clearer. I really don't know where you got to that point.

And yes, I do believe morals are subjective, which is why we go by laws and rules that are rational, rather than emotional. (Some exceptions have been made)

Hi Edyt. :-)

Read it again. I'm not saying you are a sex slave if you consented to sex...

It's about location. Read it carefully.

I know you think morals are subjective, so you have no reason to say why a sex slave trader is wrong if he took you captive (in another country).

It would be your morals against his, and he would have the power, so therefore he would be right- right?

I meant to say in the post above : Scientifically the unborn are human beings. Morally, the only differences between the unborn and the born are size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency. None of these factors change the moral nature of the unborn, because they do not change when applied to the rest of us human beings.

LOL I don't think abortion is LEGAL because it's infanticide within the womb!!!

That's a ridiculous notion.

It's legal because a fetus is not a person, like a blueprint is not a house. It will become so, but not until birth. You can't live in a house until it has been inspected (even if it's finished) and a baby isn't a person until it's born (even if it's premature).

Bank robbery is illegal, but do we make it safe for robbers to hold up banks?

That's a very good question. In fact, we have made it safer, by installing alert buttons beneath the counters. We understand that robberies will still happen despite the law, so we did as much as we could to make it safe for all persons involved. Sure, some people will still die as a result of bank robberies, but at least now it's safer since the police will be called faster.

Since we know abortion is going to happen regardless, we made it legal to ensure it is safer.

We know guns kill people, yet we keep them around because we know it is SAFER to have the masses equipped with guns, rather than the illegal few.

If the unborn are not full human beings, then their removal would be of no greater significance than having a tooth pulled, but if they are intrinsically valuable human beings, like you and I, then no justification can be made for their murder. That's a paraphrase of Greg Koukl.

They are not full human beings. They have human genetics, yes.

And I don't think I can argue whether or not human beings are "intrinsically valuable." That seems like a biased assertion from a human being. ;) I'm sure ants think they are intrinsically valuable, but we may not think so.

Most people who are pro-choice have rather selfish motivations for maintaining the status quo, and are intellectually lazy when it comes to defending their morality. They simply assume they are right.

In any other venue we'd call that bigotry. Because that's what it is.

I think it's funny that you say that, because pro-lifers also assume they are right. Does that make you a bigot too?

Look, to me, abortion is not a moral argument. Like I've said before, I believe morals are relative. Even within Christians, values vary GREATLY. That is why we have laws based on the common good, rather than personal emotion.

And I'll say this much... in an ideal world, I think abortion could be illegal for moral reasons. But in that world, contraceptives would work 100% of the time and sex would always be consensual and every unwanted child would be adopted and all children would be raised in loving homes and women would not suffer through pregnancy or childbirth.

Look, to me, abortion is not a moral argument.

Then why are you arguing?

Because you are misrepresenting my argument! See your quote, 8:55 p.m.

Edyt: 8:44: Okay, so assuming the Ten Commandments actually are the previous list (although it clearly states in the Bible that the Ten Commandments are listed at Exodus 34) what relevance do the first three have to a nonbeliever/Muslim/Buddhist/etc?

Point taken. Then don't use the ones about God since you don't believe in God. You could refrain from swearing out of respect for us, that would be nice.

It would be easy and practical and *rational* to live a decent life by following the last seven. Do you care about being a decent human being, or is that too suffocating?

I am not tied to every literal word of the Bible and I do not force it down anyone's throat. I don't believe you have to either. I am Catholic - I live by all that that entails... (I won't go into that, so as not to confuse things more.) I don't know if you believe in an after life, but that is a huge motivation behind a great number of Americans in how they live their life, so it is more important to us than you to have the freedom to practice our religions. You only have to worry about this life. You actually have it much easier. Please give us a break.

My point is, I don't really care how you live your life, but when I have to read about the ACLU suing a small town for putting up a nativity scene at Christmas when it's tradition and easily ignored by atheists, it bugs me. My taxpayer dollars are being wasted by silly lawsuits.

By the way, that's what we call a "straw man" argument; it's a fallacy in which one person sets up a fake argument that seems like it represents the other person's side and then defeats it easily. However, you only defeated the straw man, not the opponent.

EDYT 9:35: Who are you addressing that to?

Look, to me, abortion is not a moral argument.

And I'll say this much... in an ideal world, I think abortion could be illegal for moral reasons.

You're hilarious - no - really!

I don't think I've ever come across a more circular, loopy "person" in my life!

Besides the object lesson, maybe it's the high comedic value?

I think it's funny that you say that, because pro-lifers also assume they are right.

Actually I provided substantial reasons why what you say is irrational. But you simply assume you're right. Yeah, so go ahead and believe what you want.

You're also right - it's not an ideal world. Far from it.

Speaking of non-ideal world - time to finish taxes. :-(

Bye.

Janet, I don't have a problem with you practicing your religion, whatever it is, and I'm sorry if I gave off that impression. In fact, I don't even have a problem with saying "Merry Christmas" or having public nativity scenes or whatever else people want to do.

What I have a problem with is things like putting the 10 Commandments on court houses and teaching Christianity in school. And I'm not just targeting Christianity! I mean all faiths. I don't think a teacher has any right to preach atheism either.

When your right to religious freedom starts infringing on my rights, that's when I have a problem. I understand that you feel it's important to practice your religion. But how does putting up your religious texts in school help you practice religion? Don't I have the right to not have my (hypothetical) atheist children exposed to these things? If you want to teach religion, there are proper places for it. You have church. You have your home. You have private schools dedicated entirely to your faith. I don't have that. Most public schools have a religious group but they don't have an atheist group.

I don't mind religion being taught in a historical context, but I do mind when it becomes "fact" rather than "belief".

And you don't have to rely on a religious book to have moral integrity (and good thing, we'd have a lot more dead people if we did rely on these books!)

Okay Chris, real simple:

I do not argue the pro-choice side based on morality because morals are highly subjective.

But in an ideal world (presumably where everyone has the same moral ethics; I guess I implied it when I should have actually stated it clearly), abortion could be made illegal on moral grounds because morals would be objective rather than subjective.

-.-

Sorry Janet, that was for Chris.

Edyt:

What about the last seven commandments? You didn't answer my question, and I think it's important.

Why not put the commandments on courthouses? Isn't that where right and wrong are decided? And the majority of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian teaching, right? No killing, no stealing, no bribing..I could go on.... Would you prefer the total text of the U.S. codified law chiselled in teeny tiny letters around the courthouse building?

Teaching Christianity in school.... I never went to public school, except one year when I was very young, so I don't have a perspective on how, or where Christianity might be taught. You seem to be against it, perhaps because in a home school curriculum it was maybe presented in an exaggerated way? Forgive me if I'm making the wrong assumption. My point is, it doesn't have to be done in an overpowering way. Jesus tells us above all to love Him (an atheist can skip over that part) and to love your neighbor as yourself. How horrible is that??? What is it in the bible that is so offensive? Seriously? Is religion harmful? Please think about for a few days and let me know.

But how does putting up your religious texts in school help you practice religion?

I've never heard of anyone wanting to put the Catholic Catechism in any public school classroom. Many predominantly Protestant areas of the country think the Catholic religion isn't even a valid religion. I wouldn't trust the average layperson to teach it. It's too complicated.

You have private schools dedicated entirely to your faith. I don't have that. Most public schools have a religious group but they don't have an atheist group.

Then start your own school, start your own club. What would you do in an Atheist club? Make fun of religion? Ok, I'm being sarcastic, (kind of). But I don't understand. We're looking at things from a totally different persepctive. Do you have an answer?

I don't mind religion being taught in a historical context, but I do mind when it becomes "fact" rather than "belief".

Don't you mean to say you mind when it becomes belief instead of fact? Because a person is only affected by religion when they believe. Are you using the terms religion and bible (or religious texts) interchangebly? It's confusing, unless you only mean protestant religions that are sola scriptura (Bible alone).

From Wikipedia : Most philosophers hold the view that belief formation is to some extent spontaneous and involuntary.[citation needed] Some people think that one can choose to investigate and research a matter but that one can not choose to believe. On the other hand, most people have the impression that in some cases people don't believe things because they don't want to believe, especially about a matter in which they are emotionally involved.

What do you think of these statments? I know it's only wikipedia, but it still makes a few points. Take your time to answer. I'd really like to understand where you are coming from on this "religion" issue. Thanks.

"IX.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife!"

But I can covet his/her husband?

Rose,
No, not that either. Maybe God knew that men needed more reminding than us woman? Just a guess.

Edyt,
It's legal because a fetus is not a person, like a blueprint is not a house. It will become so, but not until birth. You can't live in a house until it has been inspected (even if it's finished) and a baby isn't a person until it's born (even if it's premature)

A house, unlike the unborn, is not alive. It is this little, tiny, fact that changes the whole picture. Comparing them is just absurd. A two year old is not an adult. Is that the same thing? Are two year olds like blueprints to a house? After all, they aren't "finished" yet either.

We are talking about living matter here. Something that is growing and changing, becoming and evolving, regardless of an architect. The womb is not comparable to an architect. The architect is responsible for the "creation" of the blueprints. The womb is not responsible for the creation of the unborn.

I do not argue the pro-choice side based on morality because morals are highly subjective.

No you argue on legality. But you're saying laws aren't made on moral grounds?

Hitler and Mother Theresa are morally equal, because this isn't an ideal world and morality is a majority opinion. So both Hitler and Mother Theresa are wonderful because the German people loved Hitler and the rest of the world loved Mother Theresa. One cared for the poor, while the other killed millions.

Oh yes, I can see why you're morally confused. You're a fascist.

What's my strawman, Edyt?

If I recall correctly I believe in prior posts you said you understood the unborn are human. That's not a strawman Edyt.

I didn't put up a false position to knock it down.

In fact, you're not refuting my statements about the humanity of the unborn, it's that you don't consider them to be "persons".

Ever meet a human being who's not a person?

What makes you a person Edyt - the fact that someone identified you as one when you were born?

What if your identification is taken away, like I said, you're taken captive as a sex slave - does that make you a non-person? Why not?

John L: And yet the 'reality' remains that our American school system was started in order to teach children how to read the Bible. Now the Bible is barely accessible in schools, though in *SOME* schools it is a part of some electives.

And in some other cultures many other superstitions were taught to kids, too, but the overriding deal now is that we think it's good for kids to be able to read, no superstition required.

Chris, to Edyt: this is what you demand from us - that we accept your moral relativity regarding the humanity of the unborn. Two Jewish researchers found that 54% of the professors at American universities discriminated heavily against Evangelical Christians. That's not very tolerant.

Chris, you appear to be confusing the "humanity of the unborn" with being human or not, and there is a difference, since humanity can include much more than merely having human DNA, being a living organism, etc. "Human" is not at issue, while the humanity certainly can be argued, and often is.

And of course beyond that is the real deal here - the societal attribution of rights and personhood. It's not that Edyt or anybody really "demands" that you accept the way it is - you don't like it and that's that, to begin with - you wouldn't be arguing otherwise. Edyt does correctly recognize that some things apply on an individual basis, however.

On the 54% of Professors - if true it doesn't really suprise me. Are some professors going to be against the position of Evangelicals? Well of course. If nothing else, many people are going to be "intolerant" of the intolerance on the part of some Christians.

Hey Ali, welcome!

Have been away for a week on vacation and I saw a couple of your posts on older threads. Jill's blog is a good site with quite a range of opinion.

Yikes! I don't like being talked about at other peoples' dinner tables!

Ha! Have to laugh, you're gonna have that....

Best,

Doug

From Wikipedia : Most philosophers hold the view that belief formation is to some extent spontaneous and involuntary.[citation needed] Some people think that one can choose to investigate and research a matter but that one can not choose to believe. On the other hand, most people have the impression that in some cases people don't believe things because they don't want to believe, especially about a matter in which they are emotionally involved.

Janet: What do you think of these statments? I know it's only wikipedia, but it still makes a few points. Take your time to answer. I'd really like to understand where you are coming from on this "religion" issue. Thanks.

Janet, interesting stuff. Agreed that we don't really "choose" to believe or not, with respect to unprovable things. I don't think it's really a conscious yea or nay, but rather just a "do we or don't we" deal. Lots of factors affect it - our parents, family, peers, friends, school, church, culture, etc., but I think the "to some extent (at least) spontaneous and involuntary" is certainly correct.

With provable things - physical reality, logic, etc., then the "don't want to believe" part could easily apply.

Chris- I guess my only response iiiiis that I really don't see a fetus as a baby before it is viable. I'm only pro-choice when it's in the first trimester, later if puts the mother at risk. Nothing can really change my mind about this. The thing is, I know that when I'm pregnant (and I cannot WAIT), the second I find out, whether it's only two days in or two months, I am going to consider it my child. In that case I will not be like "ohh, little unviable fetus, mommy loves you already!" But I guess this just brings me back to "let other people make their own choices with their body" argument.
Carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth is 10x more dangerous than having an abortion- a woman should be able to decide if she wants to put her body through that risk if she doesn't want the child. And that's where I stand.
I may have to call it quits here guys. I still haven't picked up a textbook and I must remember that I am first and foremost a student- second, I'm an annoying person who comments on a blog meant for people with a different view! :)

Ali, I hope you don't call it quits, but yeah, your studies are important.

Chris A, you wrote: "She argues, sometimes with horrible insensitivity, that a woman has sovereign rights to her body, and such rights override the right to life of the child. In other words, she acknowledges the unborn child is a human being who can be executed because of where she is located."

That's my position, too.

I've yet to see it refuted successfully.

Usually the right-to-lifers reply to this argument by whining about it. Using phrases like "horrible insensitivity" and so forth.

I've yet to see it refuted successfully.

That's because you are an amoral sociopath whose eyes and heart are permanently shut. Can't see what you won't look at.

There s no argument. You're a very scary person. Only someone like you COULD see it that way.

The only consolation I have is that there are so few of you..."horrible insensitivity" is meant for people who actually have a conscience and feelings.

Since you have neither this, term doesn't apply. More like "dead man talkin'." An 8 week old fetus is closer to a thinking, feeling human being than you will ever be. At least the fetus is alive. You died a long time ago.

Rest in Peace.

Typical.

SoMG,

Great comeback! Well thought out. Articulate. Easy to dance to...

Chris A, you wrote: "Morally, location doesn't change how we treat other human beings."

It does if you propose to locate something in another person's body. Suppose I hold a pencil three inches from your eye. That's no crime. But if I change its location by three inches and stab you in the eye with it, that IS a crime, even though only location has changed. If a toddler or other human tried to enter my body and locate himself inside one of my organs, I'd be entitled to prevent him from doing so by killing.

You wrote: "When a woman consents to sex, she prima facie consents to the risk of pregnancy".

Yes she does, but she does not promise to carry the pregnancy to term.

MK, your response was typical of right-to-lifers response to the argument: they cease to debate and instead either whine or issue insults.

The right to control what happens inside ones body always overrides the right to life; if it didn't we would force people to donate lifesaving organs and blood, in order to protect the patient-in-need's right to life, which would override the forced donor's right to refuse to donate part of his body.

SoMG,

The answer is typical because it is correct. I didn't insult you, I think that would be impossible. We both know what you are.

There is a HUGE difference between not offering your organs to someone and actively killing them. Even you can see that.

The right to control what happens inside ones body does not override the responsibility of a parent to it's child. Without the right to life, there can be no other rights. You know this too.

You don't even try to pretend like you have only got a skewed take on reality like most pro choicers do. They honestly don't get it. What makes you so frightening is that you understand exactly what is going on and still opt for death.

This is why you are scary. Not because you are prochoice. But because you understand that a human beings life is being taken, and it doesn't matter. This is the epitome of selfishness. Completely different than midnite or Doug or Hal.

They are making a bad choice for good reasons. They just don't "see" the truth. They honestly believe their own justifications and rationalizations.

What's scary is that you know exactly what they are doing and probably laugh at their pitiful attempts to justify abortion. You, on the other hand, know the truth and choose to kill the child anyway. To me, this is the definition of evil. This is why I find them sad, and you frightening.

MK, you wrote: "Without the right to life, there can be no other rights. "

If by this you mean, without forcing pregnant women to grow every pregnancy, there can be no other rights, then you're just silly. The USA is a pro-choice country and we nonetheless enjoy all kinds of rights.

You enjoy lots of rights. But forcing your mother to give birth to you against her will isn't one of them.

Chris A, you wrote: "Morally, location doesn't change how we treat other human beings."

It does if you propose to locate something in another person's body. Suppose I hold a pencil three inches from your eye. That's no crime. But if I change its location by three inches and stab you in the eye with it, that IS a crime, even though only location has changed. If a toddler or other human tried to enter my body and locate himself inside one of my organs, I'd be entitled to prevent him from doing so by killing.

You wrote: "When a woman consents to sex, she prima facie consents to the risk of pregnancy".

Yes she does, but she does not promise to carry the pregnancy to term.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
SoMG: To go along with your analogy....

If you put a pencil in someone's eye, it's a crime and immoral, yes, unless you asked someone to do it to you. Your taking it out is not immoral. You don't have a right to retaliate by killing.

If you put a fetus in a woman's womb, it's neither a crime, nor immoral. Taking it out is immoral. Again, you don't have a moral right to kill it..

I see no relation between an inanimate object (pencil) inserted by another person into your eye and a fetus which you put into your own body by your own action. If you allowed a person to stab you in the eye, would he still be charged with a crime? I don't think so. Could you kill him? No. Same with a fetus.

Your location argument is completely irrelevant to the matter of abortion.

SoMG: MK, you wrote: "Without the right to life, there can be no other rights. "

If by this you mean, without forcing pregnant women to grow every pregnancy, there can be no other rights, then you're just silly. The USA is a pro-choice country and we nonetheless enjoy all kinds of rights.

You enjoy lots of rights. But forcing your mother to give birth to you against her will isn't one of them.

Posted by: SoMG at April 13, 2008 10:11 PM
------------------------------------

Without the right to life, there is no life. Any other rights are inconsequential if there is no one to benefit from them.
We decide we can kill one, two, ten, one thousand fetuses, we might as well allow the killing of every person in the world without the slightest bit of remorse. and then we would cease to be.

How many women do you know who actually felt forced to give birth to a child and then actually regretted it for the rest of their life? Perhaps they were, scared, poor, tired, hungry, homeless, single, etc..., but did they really feel that the baby was the cause of their problems and that killing it would make things any better? And did it?

Do you know anyone who regretted an abortion? Do you feel sorry for them, because maybe they made a bad decision?

Have you ever met a person who wanted to abort, and you thought they were making a wrong decision? Would you ever try to talk anyone out of an abortion?

Janet:

What about the last seven commandments? You didn't answer my question, and I think it's important.

Why do they have to be the commandments at all? Why can't we write our own list of rules to follow? Why do they have to be Biblical commandments? In my high school, we had signs posted that said things like "Integrity, Honesty, Loyalty...(other things I don't remember, give me a break, high school was a long time ago!)". Isn't that sufficient?

Why not put the commandments on courthouses? Isn't that where right and wrong are decided? And the majority of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian teaching, right? No killing, no stealing, no bribing..I could go on.... Would you prefer the total text of the U.S. codified law chiselled in teeny tiny letters around the courthouse building?

No bribing? Where's that written in the 10 Commandments?! (I'm kidding, of course) Again, I bring up the point: Why the 10 Commandments? Thing is, I don't think things like "do not steal" or "do not kill" come exclusively from the Bible, or from religious texts. I think there are a lot of very common rules that we have as a society so that we can live our lives happily and to the extent of our freedoms. However, most of these rules can be logically conjured; they don't have to have a Biblical root. While I agree, many of our laws were probably formed with Biblical law in mind, we have obviously omitted laws like not working on Sunday and not eating pork... things of that nature. They are not logical laws, they are only Biblical. That's why I don't think posting the 10 Commandments would serve our courthouses... because our laws today are not Biblical in nature.

Teaching Christianity in school.... I never went to public school, except one year when I was very young, so I don't have a perspective on how, or where Christianity might be taught. You seem to be against it, perhaps because in a home school curriculum it was maybe presented in an exaggerated way? Forgive me if I'm making the wrong assumption. My point is, it doesn't have to be done in an overpowering way. Jesus tells us above all to love Him (an atheist can skip over that part) and to love your neighbor as yourself. How horrible is that??? What is it in the bible that is so offensive? Seriously? Is religion harmful? Please think about for a few days and let me know.

I was homeschooled up until 8th, spent all four years of highschool in public school. (Just to clarify). I think teaching religion at home is great! I think teaching religion at church is great! I think teaching religion at private schools is great! But public schools are secular and government funded, and as such, religion has no place within them.

Why? Because non-religious or alternatively religious parents should not have to fight to have their personal beliefs represented in a secular school. Just because you have the majority view in this country does not give you the right to force it on other people through teaching ID in science classes or forcing children to pray before class.

Religion is VERY harmful! There are so many messages of hate in the Bible, I'm surprised more people aren't dead. Religion has been used to justify witch hunts, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, anti-semitism, hate crimes against homosexuals and atheists, stonings, and .... a bunch of other horrible events in history and today. Do I want my (hypothetical) kids going to a public school and being told hateful things by teachers and students who believe the Bible is the only true message? No, I do not.

The love part of Christianity is great, and I cannot disagree with loving others. But the Bible also justifies a lot of hate, and the ability to get the wrong message is way too easy. I'd sooner agree with Buddhism being taught in schools than Christianity, even though I'm not Buddhist.

Then start your own school, start your own club. What would you do in an Atheist club? Make fun of religion? Ok, I'm being sarcastic, (kind of). But I don't understand. We're looking at things from a totally different persepctive. Do you have an answer?

Well, I'm not much of an educator, ha ha... but thankfully some people are looking into some more atheist-oriented places. I read something in Time awhile back about an atheist "Sunday school" of sorts, where they teach young kids about morality from a secular standpoint. I thought it was a cute idea.

And I started a philosophy club in high school, but I'm no longer there, so I can't do much... and like I said, I'm not a teacher.

There are lots of things to talk about as an atheist. Philosophy, life choices, politics, science, how to calmly talk to angry religious people... hehe. I don't know, atheists are people too. We'd probably discuss religion a lot from a secular standpoint. You know, analysis and its effect on society.

Don't you mean to say you mind when it becomes belief instead of fact? Because a person is only affected by religion when they believe. Are you using the terms religion and bible (or religious texts) interchangebly? It's confusing, unless you only mean protestant religions that are sola scriptura (Bible alone).

No, what I meant was that when people imply that God is a fact rather than a belief. It's cool if you believe in him, but facts are things that have been proven. And I'm sorry for the confusion, usually when I talk about religion I'm talking about general Christianity. Since I wasn't raised Catholic I don't know much about it. Are there major differences I should be aware of to help make this conversation clearer?

From Wikipedia : Most philosophers hold the view that belief formation is to some extent spontaneous and involuntary.[citation needed] Some people think that one can choose to investigate and research a matter but that one can not choose to believe. On the other hand, most people have the impression that in some cases people don't believe things because they don't want to believe, especially about a matter in which they are emotionally involved.

Haha, citation needed? I don't think belief is "spontaneous" at all. I think most people believe a certain religion because they were raised to believe it or grew up in a society where it was largely the norm. For example, people who grow up in parts of Africa and the Middle East are for the most part Muslim. Europeans and North Americans have big protestant Christianity sects, Central and Southern America have a lot of Catholics. Could that all be coincidence? Spontaneous religious belief? I don't think so. And history would show that a lot of those religions occured out of migrant religious people converting others where they traveled.

As a curious person who gets a little high off researching, I could agree that people can research and choose what to believe. I think that was one of the reasons I felt so dissonant when it came to faith... since I couldn't really argue one was better or more right than another. I like to see all sides before making a decision. Ultimately, I chose atheism.

And I can also agree that sometimes people choose not to agree out of emotional reasons. Of course, I will also say I feel people believe out of emotional reasons as well. There are a lot of driving factors to being and not being religious, and emotion is a part of our essence. It will always be a part of the equation. Perhaps it was part of why I started leaning away from religion, but it was certainly not the only reason I became an atheist.

I hope this satisfies your questions, and I did spend a long time thinking about it!!

Janet, you wrote: "Without the right to life, there is no life."

Again, that's silly. It's wordplay. Lots of pro-choice countries are teaming with human life.

You asked: "How many women do you know who actually felt forced to give birth to a child... "

None, fortunately. I live in the USA, which is a pro-choice country. We do not force women to give birth.

You asked, "Do you know anyone who regretted an abortion? Do you feel sorry for them, because maybe they made a bad decision?"

The only women I have met who told me they regret their abortions were affiliated with right-to-life religious cults.

In any case, freedom means freedom to make decisions we later regret. That's not an argument against freedom.

SoMG is a coward that can't admit a mistake or error when the evidence is put right in front of them

In any case, freedom means freedom to make decisions we later regret. That's not an argument against freedom.

Actually freedom means having the ability to do the right thing unhindered. It does not mean a license to do anything one wants. If every one has his own moral standard and decides for himself what is right and wrong, then he who has the most strength will win and we will have a tyranny. Which is not freedom.

I'm only free to play the game if I know and am willing to follow the rules.

Ali said

Chris- I guess my only response iiiiis (sic) that I really don't see a fetus as a baby before it is viable

1. You must believe the unborn are fully human after the 1st trimester, because you're only pro-choice in the 1st trimester.
2. The 2nd trimester is from 13th week to the 27th week with external viability around 20-21 weeks.

So which one is it - are you pro-choice through the first trimester or the 2nd trimester? Why change?

The real question is "Are the unborn human persons or not?"

Ali - have you ever really read Blackmun's Roe opinion?

He literally makes a statement that we don't know when human life begins, then later he says we know when a fetus is viable because it can live outside her mother. This is nonsense. Scientifically we know when human life begins.

We even have IVF - human beings, where embryos live outside the womb of the mother, making them "viable" using the same logic Blackmun uses after 21 weeks.

You're morally discriminating against the unborn based on environment. The unborn are in their natural environment - within the womb. This is the location argument I made above. I handle the whole bodily rights argument here.

Life and death is not an issue to be unsure about.

Carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth is 10x more dangerous than having an abortion- a woman should be able to decide if she wants to put her body through that risk if she doesn't want the child. And that's where I stand.

You're safely ignoring the idea that unborn females aren't women at a much earlier stage in life.

So you're saying it's okay to kill human beings.

In other words, you're making an assumption about existing human beings that they aren't human. I don't think you would like it if anyone said that about you - and then used that as an excuse to kill you.

Then considering that roughly 50% (or more if you count sex selection abortions) of the abortions worldwide - estimated at about 50 million annually, makes that 25 million deaths of women at a very early age. That's deadly, not dangerous.

In addition to your studies, you may want to brush up on embryology and be amazed.

Thanks for the respectful discussion.

Doug at April 13, 2008 10:49 AM

Doug - you clearly don't understand what intrinsic means when it comes to human beings; you're grossly ignorant of embryology and the science of human development; you're morally relative; and as I found out, you have no idea what absolute truth is because even when I provide a solid argument which you can't rationally refute, you irrationally refute it, and believe you're right. Begging the question - assuming what you are trying to prove, and being a bigot - thinking you're right, even when you've been proven wrong, go hand in hand.

Whatever Doug - from now on I'll refrain from arguing with you.
I'd be a fool to continue.

SoMG at April 13, 2008 7:39 PM

SoMG - Like I said before, if a sociopath were to put a pencil within 3 inches of my eye, I would feel threatened and kill the sociopath in self-defense. Context is vital to the moral scope, but you chose to ignore that point. So, like Doug, if you don't respect me enough to read what I wrote, in particular, when I refuted your argument I have no reason to believe you care enough about me as a person.

And If you don't care about me, when you have every reason to believe I'm an intrinsically valuable human being like yourself, why would you care about an unborn human being?

Yes she does, but she does not promise to carry the pregnancy to term.

And since you don't believe consent implies on-going agreement, why should anyone trust you?

I don't wish to associate with people who don't care for me, and who I don't trust with my life. Nor do I want them having anything to do with the ones I love, including making law that will impact our posterity.

So SoMG - I'll refrain from arguing with you and urge others to do likewise.

Chris, to Edyt: this is what you demand from us - that we accept your moral relativity regarding the humanity of the unborn. Two Jewish researchers found that 54% of the professors at American universities discriminated heavily against Evangelical Christians. That's not very tolerant.

"Chris, you appear to be confusing the "humanity of the unborn" with being human or not, and there is a difference, since humanity can include much more than merely having human DNA, being a living organism, etc. "Human" is not at issue, while the humanity certainly can be argued, and often is.

And of course beyond that is the real deal here - the societal attribution of rights and personhood. It's not that Edyt or anybody really "demands" that you accept the way it is - you don't like it and that's that, to begin with - you wouldn't be arguing otherwise. Edyt does correctly recognize that some things apply on an individual basis, however.

On the 54% of Professors - if true it doesn't really suprise me. Are some professors going to be against the position of Evangelicals? Well of course. If nothing else, many people are going to be "intolerant" of the intolerance on the part of some Christians."

Chris: Doug - you clearly don't understand what intrinsic means when it comes to human beings; you're grossly ignorant of embryology and the science of human development;

Baloney. You and I do not disagree on the physical reality of the unborn, the intrinsic part. You're just pretending otherwise. Same for embryology and human development.

You also want to pretend that attributed status is somehow "intrinsic," and that is one error on your part. If there is a need to understand what "intrinsic" means, it is on you.
......

you're morally relative; and as I found out, you have no idea what absolute truth is because even when I provide a solid argument which you can't rationally refute, you irrationally refute it, and believe you're right. Begging the question - assuming what you are trying to prove, and being a bigot - thinking you're right, even when you've been proven wrong, go hand in hand.

Again, rather that reply rationally, you just make up a bunch of silly stuff.

Yes, morals are relative, relative to the observer, to the consciousness doing the valution, having the desires, making the judgments of good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm. Without "somebody" caring one way or another, there would be no morality. Morality is thoughts, ideas, etc., not anything with physical, external, or absolute existence. It fits the definition of "subjective," and it does not fit the definition of "objective," it is concepts of the mind, not anything beyond the mind.

You haven't proven anything, just assumed that your subjective opinions and desires are some sort of imaginary "absolutes," and they simply are not. This argument goes straight to desire. You more desire that the unborn life continue, and I more desire that the woman retains the freedom she now has.

Edyt:12:21:

Thank you for your answer to my long post.

Chris is battling a agnostic dogmatist.
A breed of human that absolutely knows that "no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do". So, there is nothing to discuss or argue when one engages a person of such faith in his dogmatic self reasoning for killing innocent human life.
OTOH, Doug knows, that he absolutely does not know, or know, if a Spaghetti Monster exist.
Again Dogmatic Doug fails to understand the philosophical paradox of being a agnostic from being absolutely agnostic in matters of a God invention.
The dogmatism of Doug is based on demanding a "right" to a decision which ends human life for reasons based on health, wealth, and the will power(free? will) to end human life. These are also reasons given by mainline Protestants and sanctified by their God.
Shorter principle; Killing/murder is a right.
Supporting principle for the killing/murder; non person, human being.
Poor Chris, debating a closed minded agnostic dogmatist, is to debate a mind that has closed itself off in a world of "knowing that no one has a good arguement against abortion", from being a closed circle of faith based reason, for the killing of human life.
You lose Chris.
Before you write a sentence in defence of allowing a human being to live, Dogmatic Doug "absolutely knows the truth"(dogma), that you have no good argument against not allowing that human being to live.

Chris A, I read your blog post, and it does not refute my position. Which is:

If you're a person and you're located inside another person's body, then the other person has the right to kill and evict you when she wants, because it's HER body.

Nowhere in your long post do you refute this position.

Keep trying.

If yllas is on Chris's side, that's just one more strike against Chris....