In a sense, I know that we should respect everybody, but do we really just need to keep quiet when crazy religious people preach and yell and affect law? I personally don't think so. Maybe I am too closed minded, but I think the more vocal the atheist community becomes and LESS vocal the religious community can be the world would be better off...Faith is not based in fact, as everybody knows. So why not publicly denounce all faiths as ignorant and detrimental.
Does anybody else have any thoughts on this?
Fetal consciousness is a legitimate science-based ethical reason to regulate abortion. We don't know when fetal consciousness begins except that it occurs sometime after 24 weeks.
Actually. it isn't clear why this is a relevant factor. Consciousness, in and of itself, is a poor threshold to use. Livestock is conscious (perhaps more significantly so than foetuses) and we slaughter it wholesale. Consciousness alone doesn't equate to personhood, and it is the rights of persons with which we are primarily concerned.
Recently, a Member of Parliament here tried for a motion petitioning for a scientific inquiry into the matter. His end goal was to reevaluate, and potentially redefine the definition of personhood in our murder statutes. (The exact terms in the Criminal code are 'human being' and 'homicide'.)
This presents more problems than it solves, even if we accepted that late term abortions should be avoided (which I do not). A doctor would now be committing homicide in performing a late term abortion. Medical necessity? Is there such a thing as medically necessary homicide?
We aren't protecting anything with such laws.
Well, it's so sad to talk to someone who has such little regard for women, who things that they are, as a rule, just to pathetically stupid to manage their own bodies and who also seems to have even less concern about the children that are forced to grow up with such harpies.
I, on the other hand, give them the befit of the doubt, assuming that these women actually struggled with their decision and don't feel it necessary to reduce half our country to slavery.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Personally, I err on the side of freedom and liberty rather than subjugation and slavery.
In other words: your position is too weak to withstand an intellectually honest debate, or address the actual substance of my comments. So you go all shrill and
@Gallup's Mirror - "In other words: your position is too weak to withstand an intellectually honest debate"
Actually, no. It was just clear to me that you are closed minded and are one of those people that jump to conclusions and use arbitrary lines in the sand to take a stance to justify what you want to be true. You admit that you have no idea when consciousness develops ("We don't know when fetal consciousness begins"), don't know anything about the circumstances around these very few abortions ("I can't tell you how many of the 8028 abortions performed after 21 weeks in 2008 were justifiable"), and believe in over-bearing, over-reaching government ("government bureaucrats (and Democrats too) are involved in every legal issue, from jaywalking to homicide. That goes whether abortion is completely unrestricted or banned outright.").
You also seem to produce contradictory statements (e.g. that last statement: "government bureaucrats ... are involved in every legal issue, ... [even when] ... completely unrestricted". How would bureaucrats be involved in something that is completely unrestricted?).
My stance is pretty straight forward:
* To me, the OBVIOUS line in the stand is birth. No one at all can ague that a person becomes their own after that point.
* Second, as I said, I prefer to err on the side of freedom and liberty rather than slavery. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to the point of death for both her and the baby, to me is one of the very definitions of evil.
* You are correct in that I don't have any empirical evidence to suggest that most of the women having late-term abortions are doing so based on heath reasons. However, LOGIC is definitely on my side here. Like I said, I just don't believe that a woman would carry a baby into her third trimester (let alone her second trimester), only to abort it for no better reason than on a whim. As I said, to think that they would for no valid reason is basically saying that you think that women are too pathetically stupid to make their own decisions. It is saying that women can never be trusted to make their own decisions, relegating them to slavery of their own bodies and the men that make their decisions for them.
My concession is simply the recognition that you and I have what appears to be contradictory political philosophies and I don't see a way for us to come to a consensus. My posts always include the concept of freedom and allowing adults to make their own decisions whereas your posts never address liberty, but rather seem to support fascist governmental control over people's lives based on your personal moral path and ignoring every else's that contradict it. We seem to have such diametrically opposed viewpoints on how people should be treated, that I don't really see how a conversation between us could be constructive.
Also, I do hope that your wife/sister/daughter or whoever is close to you doesn't have complications one day and end up dying in a hospital bed because some self-righteous bureaucratic prick has decided that her life isn't worth squat.
Me: Medical science shows fetal consciousness begins sometime after 24 weeks.
Crackpot: That's slavery!!! You're enslaving women!!!
Me: We really should roll back these arbitrary state limitations on abortions.
Crackpot: A self-righteous prick will kill your family!!!
Me: It would be better to base abortion-related legislation on reality, science, and reason.
Crackpot: See what happens when you ban all abortions!!!
Priceless, Keith. Absolutely priceless. Have a great night. ;)
@G - ya, so you accuse me of running away from an "honest debate" while puking insults like "So you go all shrill..." and resort to name calling, and you call ME the irrational one? You can't even associate quotes properly. Too funny. Xian trolls like you are so amusing. LOL
Sadly, in my experience, it does not seem a common occurance.
RE: "For the faithful bible is still the bible." - Personally, I would rephrase that Robert.
I would say that for the faithful, who prefer not to investigate the Bible, and learn about all of the biblical scholars who have evidence that Moses did not write any of the books labeled, "According To Moses," who chose not to learn about all of the other forgeries, pseudepigraphical writings, and insertions by anonymous authors into authentic texts, not to mention the first Council of Nicaea, in which it was arbitrarily decided which books would be included in the New Testament, and which would not (of which, many of the latter were destroyed), then, yes, the Bible is still the Bible.
And an ostrich is still an ostrich --
I agree. The "word of god" is not the "word of god" at all.
I believe it is a human book with no supernatural providence that is "sold" as being infallible and must be taken on faith. And of course, the suspension of the natural laws of physics and biology in front of bewildered crowds of desert tribes are used to somehow prove that. The pope is also claimed to infallible, and thus for faithful catholics a drastic change to a more liberal stance would be hard to swallow. All other liberal sects are less faithful. So no, I don't see droves of the religious suddenly challenging biblical authorship. If atheists were respected by the religious we would not have to fear discrimination, especially in the south where I live.