Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Boogers, Seeds, and Possibilties

I was driving through Fargo, ND minding my own business, on the way to the library actually, when I happened to glance to the left and see the Red River Women’s Clinic.

Downtown Fargo is working hard at renovating the old buildings, in an attempt to revitalize the community. They have redone a good portion of this block and I smiled with appreciation at the pretty new fa├žade they have put on the building.

Noticing the people out front I think, “Huh, there’s a line. The women's clinic must be busy today.”

Wait a minute. Those 4 women aren’t there for birth control. Those signs they are holding aren’t “take a number” and wait your turn. Those are protesters!!!!!!

I nearly slammed on my brakes in the middle of traffic.


“PRAY TO END ABORTION” their signs say. I was laughing with rage and smiling with fury.

Four fundies standing on the street murmuring their prayers to make the world a better place.

I was originally on my way to the library.

Now all I could think of was finding a parking space and confronting fundies.

Their goal is to stop the abortion.

Who will pay the medical bills for the pregnancy, birth, delivery? What about after the baby is born? How much do they care what happens then? Are they prepared to help financially with the burden of raising the children whose lives they "save"? Do they plan to adopt or foster any of these precious children?



I know there is little point in talking to fundies.

Especially the type of non-thinkers who will actually stand outside a women's clinic and say their rosary and pray to the saints to stop the slaughter of the innocents.

I know that no matter what I say to them, they won’t change their minds. But I could not simply drive by and allow them to think that my silence in any way condoned what they were doing.

I wonder how many women drove by intending to stop in and kept going.

I am sure the fundies count each one as a success.

But the clinic provides more than abortions.

It provides free and low cost birth control for people who can’t afford it and routine gynecological exams, pap smears and the like. Yet these fundies would rather a woman’s cervical cancer go undetected if it will also prevent another woman from terminating an unwanted pregnancy.



Pro Life = PRO SLAVERY

An embryo is a POSSIBILITY not a baby.

It is a seed and it can be cut out of the body with no further grief than that of having to remove a wart, a tumor, or a cyst.

Why should the meeting of one egg with one sperm condemn a person to the death of their entire future?

Going through 9 months of pregnancy, each new symptom a constant reminder of one mistake, one night that you will pay for the rest of your life.

Having your body slowly twisted out of shape, contorted and distorted- in most cases beyond recovery to its original state.

Giving birth after hours upon hours of torment, starting and stopping as your body prepares to expel its new master from its body

Deciding if you should now give up this wrinkly piece of flesh that carries your genetic code for someone else to raise.

Keeping the squalling mass and raising it even if you are emotionally unprepared for parenthood.

Raising a child when you were unable to prepare financially for the situation.

What kind of life is this for a child?

If a person is honest enough to say, “I’m not ready to have children” why force the issue upon them????

For crying out loud there are too many parents out there breeding irresponsibly and they say they WANT children. Should society not instead be bloody grateful that some intelligent few will say “Hell no, I can't raise a child properly!”?????

No woman should be condemned to a life of servitude because of a booger sized clump of cells.

“Doc, I’ve got a tumor and I need it removed.”

129 comments:

Poodles said...

EXACTLY!

Maggie Rosethorn said...

Yeah Fiery! I agree 100%.

Tattooed & Atheist (T&A) said...

Fargo? I loved that movie!

In all seriousness I agree 110% with you! Fundies: using superstition as science since 49 AD...

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

They really should be moved on by the police, they are preventing women from getting quality health advice. I can't believe this is 21st century America (well I can), but its fuckin' sad in more ones than one.

Attila The Mom said...

Yep!! Agree 100%!

Fiery said...

Fundies are so unpredictable. I rather thought they'd come out of the woodwork on this one.

lol

I suppose there wasn't a lot of grey area in my opinion.

*snerk*

Starhawk said...

Hmmm, bit of a difficult one for me. I agree the protesters shouldn't be out there. I have in the past gone with female friends to such places, just because they were so intimidated by the condemnation they would recieve.

I believe that many circumstances 100% make sense for someone to get an abortion.

At the same time I have seen it abused. I know a girl that was exceedingly promiscuous and did not use any protection what so ever. Couple years back I asked her why she isn't more careful, she told me that she's had 4 abortions and would just get another.

?!?!?!?!

This baffles me; the procedures involved (especially in the 2nd or 3rd Trimester) aren't exactly pleasant. Certainly a condom or some good ole' Depo would be perferable. To this day I have yet to get an answer out of her that satisfies the pointlessness of that method of "birth-control".

So I don't think we should have abortion drive-thru's. Or be able to get one over the internet. At the same time, I certainly think it should be available, but how to limit abuses of it... well I honostly don't know.

I got more thoughts on this, but I think I'm gonna eat breakfast and look some more info up before I talk my mouth off.

Reg Golb said...

Starhawk, don't feed the troll. You actually have a coherent thought. Hmm

Atheist, no life after death.

When does lump of tissue become a baby?

Let's consider the ramifications to the lump-baby.

"What kind of life is this for a child?" asks fiery. With all due respect, you are asking the wrong person. You should ask the lump-baby. If their life sucks so bad, they can alway commit suicide. Your option is eternal nothingness.

This might sound harsh, but it is a fact that no one can argue. All this and I skipped breakfast today.

Starhawk said...

I "actually" have a coherant thought?

Your words make me believe you're surprised, I am unaware that the 2 or 3 posts I've made total were incoherant. If so please ask for clarification and I will give it to the best of my ability. Otherwise try not to sound so condescending, it hurts any point you're trying to get across by needless angering those you're trying to speak to.

I'm not looking to pick a fight with you Reg, but don't go looking for one, you'll find it.

Breakfast was bad and the internet failed me, I'm off to read on my own.

Reg Golb said...

I mean you actually have a coherent thought among all the other posts. Every post here is filled with emotions, disgust, and incoherent rambling. You, and I am complimenting you, had a coherent thought. Well done.

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

You know Reg, you are about as coherent as the rest of us on this one.

The protesters want to end aborton. There view is black and white, straight down the line, that any abortion is wrong in their view.

The issue is just not that simple, women must have the right to choose and to make an informed choice made on the best evidence to hand and these protesters are hindering that process.

We can argue over when a lump of tissue becomes a baby, I gather that you would say from conception. That an human assisted abortion is not part of gods plan.

I would argue that the baby does not gain any rights until it is born or at least until it can live outside of the womb.

I think that women recieving counselling as early as possible in their pregnancy will alow the best decision to be made and for each an every person it will be different.

It is their body and they have the right to do with it as they wish. Mind you repeated carelessness as demonstated by the woman that refuses to use protection/ contraceptives should not be endlessly supported by the govenment either.

It is not an easy decison to make, and nor should it be, but it must be one made on the best information.

There are no souls waiting in heaven to be given a body, an aborted baby was a possible, potential human, and there are quite literally millions expiring everyday and millions achieving birth every year.

A process(growth of a human) was started and didn't reach its conclusion.

What do you find so repugnant about abortion Reg?

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

Sorry being incoherent, there should be their.

Starhawk said...

Okay, I got over my disapointing breakfast and had a wonderful lunch at Grandmas... now I feel fully prepared to type on this issue :)

Thus far my stance on abortion has been: Okay for others not okay for me.

I have decided that where I'm at in my life, that I am not ready for a serious relationship or a family. I have turned down some very attractive pleasant girls, mainly because I don't believe that I am at the right point to start anything serious. I have too many personal changes and issues I have to work through before I could commit to anything too involved.

That being said, IF somehow I wound up getting someone pregnant, I would wish to see that child born and would oppose any mention of abortion. Though the fetus may not be a full person yet, it has the potential to be one and part of his/her make-up is part of me. Having a child now would be disasterous for my current lifestyle and would probably crush everything I have worked towards thus far. But if I make the decision to have sex with someone, I have to accept the fact that intercourse can result in pregnancy; no matter how many precaution's you take. I have heard too many stories of surprise pregnancies to eliminate the possibity all together.

It's far too easy to say, "Oh shit, well let's just get rid of that." I believe that abortion should be an OPTION for people, but it is a very serious thing that should not in any way be taken lightly. It is not exactly ending the life of another being, it's just ending the possibility of life. Even that POSSIBILITY though has great value and should only be stopped after much consideration and when there is no options left.

I'll fully admit I'm still forming my opinions on this issue, but the more I think about it, the more I think that abortions should not be common. When it is acceptable and how that should be decided is still beyond me... I'll probably be pondering this one for a lot longer.

I know I've ranted probably more than my share on this, but it's a personal issue that I've had a hard time coming to my own thoughts on. I'm glad this thread got started, cause I've spent most of today thinking about it and that has been long overdue :)_

Johnny said...

At the same time I have seen it abused. I know a girl that was exceedingly promiscuous and did not use any protection what so ever. Couple years back I asked her why she isn't more careful, she told me that she's had 4 abortions and would just get another.
If you think it's someones choice to have an abortion then what's the difference if they have 1 or 1000? If you think that there is no soul and it is just removing a bunch of cells then why do you think someone is abusing having abortions it is just at a different stage in preventing pregnancy... condom or abortion what is the difference? Obviously apart from the discomfort of the patient!

Reg Golb said...

When, then, does it become alive with rights. I would like to debate that issue. I just don't understand how an atheist, who believes that you only get one chance at life, would agree with killing that chance. Especially since there is a debate about when that lump-baby is self-sustaining.

As far as the incoherent, I disagree. The fact is that abortions are legal now. I don't understand how fiery and the rest are SOO pissed off, excuse my language, about a couple of women, mind you, who are willing to "waste" their own time to try to imform someone else. They aren't stopping anyone from doing it.

Janet said...

"but the more I think about it, the more I think that abortions should not be common."

Being pro-choice does NOT mean we are pro-abortion! Pretty much EVERYONE thinks that abortions should be less common. (with the exception being people like the girl who uses it as birth control)

Instead, lets prevent the PREGNANCY! What a novel idea! Oh wait, that's what Planned Parenthood does! Why do people protest that? Because they are, whether they think are or not.

I live next to a Catholic church that has their annual parade of crosses out right now. I really want to stop and ask them how many children they have adopted, how many of those women they paid for maternity care.

This is MY body. What right does some old, white, fat man in DC who has never met me to tell me that I can't make a medical decision with my doctor? What right do YOU have to tell me I can't have a specific medical service?

For the record, I have never had an abortion, and I have two beautiful children. But don't tell me what I can or cannot do with my body.

Reg Golb said...

And yet Janet, if you are drinking, we tell you that you can't drive.
Calling it a pregnancy does not answer the question as to when the lump has rights. That is the current debate. Most Americans believe that it has rights before birth and yet we still allow abortions. Wouldn't it make sense to debate the real issue. Noone is telling you what to do with your body, they may be trying to stop abortions, but the fact remains that they are currently legal.

Fiery said...

golb,

You want to debate the issue without stating your side. Leaving us to assume your position, respond, and you protest "but that's not what I think".

State what you think, golb. Make a stand.

Tattooed & Atheist (T&A) said...

" Most Americans believe that it has rights before birth and yet we still allow abortions."

Get your facts straight. Just because everyone you know thinks the same way you do, it doesn't make it a majority opinion.

Just see the poll results below.

---------------------------------------
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-9, 2007. 1,263 adults nationwide.


"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."

Should be generally available: 34%
Available,but with stricter limits:39%
Should not be permitted: 25%
Unsure:2%
---------------------------------------
So actually Reg, 72% believe abortion should be available in some form.

Tattooed & Atheist (T&A) said...

make that 73%

Reg Golb said...

My position.

Begins before cenception.

But we are not talking about what we believe, because what we believe doesn't change the fact that that lump-baby is alive somewhere between conception and birth. We can't prove when that is. But premies can survive very early now. That is what they call evidence that it is way before birth.

Now it is your turn.

Reg Golb said...

I also says that 64% of Americans believe that the lump-baby should get amnesty. If illegal immigrants, who are criminal, should get amnesty, what about a innocent kid. Oh yeah, you think they are alien invaders.

Tattooed & Atheist (T&A) said...

"I also says that 64% of Americans believe that the lump-baby should get amnesty. If illegal immigrants, who are criminal, should get amnesty, what about a innocent kid. Oh yeah, you think they are alien invaders"
----------------------------------------
You are connecting two separate issues that while they can be connected, really have nothing to do with one another.

It's the same as saying that if 74% of American support CCTV to fight terrorism, then the same amount must support the government using those cameras to view what we do in our own bedrooms with our sexual partners.

Richard said...

Sean, that was a great comment!

Right and Wrong are moral issues. It would be immoral for a pregnant woman to have an abortion if she values the potential human in her body. But if she doesn't, it is her decision.

Her body is 100% her own, and no one else has any Right to decide the matter for her, not even the father. However, the male involved can determine in advance if his potential child would be in the care of a woman who values it in the manner he would like. If he has doubts he is morally obligated to accept her decision, fully. The message to Men: get a brain and pick the right woman for your values!!!

Her body, and her mind, are hers alone. Therefore no one, absolutely no one has any kind of legal Right to it, nor to force her decision. There must be no legislative intervention of any kind, except in the event that some independent human being might be harmed by the abortion... which really only means that her doctor must perform the abortion as he promises by contract.

Reg's equating drunk drivers with a woman getting an abortion is founded on an egregious confusion of a private moral right with politic-legal Rights.

The significantly drunk driver is a direct threat to others' lives. (Though I rather think some drivers with 0.08% blood alcohol are safer than many completely sober drivers, and therefore object to the presumption of guilt 0.08% is used to justify.)

Whereas the drunk driver DOES fall into the realm of the political principle of the Right to life, a woman having a fetus removed does not. Notice the equivocation between Right to Life and right to life... it is no small thing, that adds to Reg's perhaps unintentional equivocation between the pregnant woman and the drunk driver.

The fetus is not in any way an independent entity in society and therefore the political Right to life does not apply to it, only to the mother and her Right to Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness exist.

Anti-abortionists only have the Right of Free Speech to argue for adoption of the born child and by speaking for the value of human life. The instant they argue for legislation or "stricter limits" they are stepping into wicked, anti-freedom, and therefore anti-American values and should be ignored or, as I am doing, rebuked. They have no right to intimidate others, nor even picket in any way that harasses the mothers seeking assistance, no matter how revulsed they may feel.

I hope this makes sense, I wrote it in five minutes.

Harry Nads said...

OT, but following Reg...

Illegal immigrants should be hunted down and deported.

Illegal immigrants that have children in the US, the children should also be considered illegal immigrants.

Janet said...

Driving while drinking is NOT a decision I make with my Doctor.

And when my children are old enough to have responsibilities, THEN they can have rights.

As of right now, NOTHING my children get, be it a tiger ride on my husband's back or a toy car, are "rights", they are privileges.

Driving a car is NOT a right, it is a privilege. That privilege comes with the responsibility of driving in a save manner, sober or not.

Having my body taken over by a parasite or not for 9/10 months is MY right. Childbearing itself is NOT a piece of cake. Each pregnancy and delivery has a thousand complications that could cause harm to both the mother and the child(ren) she carries.

It's bad enough I grew up in (and escaped from, thank the IPU) a religion that would have required me to commit suicide (or my parents to sacrifice me) if I ever needed a life-saving blood transfusion.

To the patriarchal fundies, well, here's me giving you a big "fuck you"!

Starhawk said...

In the end Johnny all of us aren't much more than a collection of cells. That does not mean you can terminate me, that would be murder. I believe someone said it later in this thread and they were very right: I would also consider myself Pro-Choice, not
Pro-Abortion. Abortion IS the termination of something that has the potential to be a sentient being. The closer it comes to birth the more of that potential is realized. After it leaves the womb, it is given SOME rights as it now exists indepandently from the mother. That is why parents don't have the right to bash a newborn's head in. Once it is no long phsycally dependant on that ONE person it has developed enough to be considered too valuable to destroy. It has become a person.

Reg, I apoligize, I didn't mean to get defensive. I misread your intentions. Oh, and feeding the Troll is kinda fun... now I see why everybody else does it.

Johnny said...

In the end Johnny all of us aren't much more than a collection of cells. That does not mean you can terminate me, that would be murder. Now are you trying to say that abortion is murder? I am not getting you starhawk.
I am personally pro choice which I see as also being pro abortion I think the potential for a sentient being means nothing! Do you masturbate? How many potential sentient beings are you terminating when you do that?
every sperm is sacred
every sperm is great
if a sperm is wasted
god gets quite irate.
I think abortion would only be an issue if there was a god.

oh and by the way golb is the troll! He sucked you in haha

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

Pro Choice is simply that, being in favour of a woman's right to choose not to have an abortion or to have one.

My mother is Catholic, Pro Choice, but not for abortion, unless in extreme circumstances.

Me I am pro-choice, and don't have any feelings either way, give the woman the best information to hand, she will make the right choice for her, for that time in her life.

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

And as an addendum, as I am not tied to religious dogmatism I am free to, after analysis of the facts and arguments to change my mind.

Just wait until we start altering humans for existance/living in Zero G or heavy G envrionments.

Reg Golb said...

Janet's children don't have rights. Are you all going to let her get away with that?

I am sure there is some liberal here who at least is brainwashed enough to think they have the right to all the free healthcare they need.

Richard said...

An excellent comment Janet, but I cannot bear the evil in two of Starhawk's remarks!

"...all of us aren't much more than a collection of cells."

OMFG

There is NO capacity for a "collection of cells" such as floating blobs of algae to recognize its neighbor, even chemically, let alone to write, read and create computers and the Internet. Evolution culminates in the human mind (which has the option to use itself or not).

Suggesting that such a mind is just a "collection of cells" relies on that brilliant tool to deny it! The hypocrisy is enough to choke a yawning hippopotamus. Only man has the exalted capacity to form concepts that Starhawk relies on...

"If a drought strikes them, animals perish —man builds irrigation canals; if a flood strikes them, animals perish —man builds dams; if a carnivorous pack attacks them, animals perish —man writes the Constitution of the United States."

It is the Constitution that acknowledges the Natural Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, that recognizes that Man is not just a "collection of cells". It recognizes, further, that free Men are only free if they are free from coercion by other Men.

That means women, to be free from 'carnivorous' attacks by other men, must be free to decide what to do with their own bodies. Women have the Right not to be held slave to those who wish to coerce her into devoting twenty years of her life to raising the "collection of cells" growing in her body. It is her natural Right that she should not be held slave to those who place the moral significance of a genuine collection of cells over her significance as a fully organized and actual being, in body AND in mind.

Rights only exist in so far as a conceptual mind can acknowledge and live by them. A woman has Rights, a "collection of cells" does not, and more importantly it cannot.

Starhawk, wickedly, turns this latter principle on its head. "termination of something that has the potential to be a sentient being. That not uncommon view, gives moral, social and biological importance to a potential human, while utterly disregarding the very real importance of the actual that is the woman.

This is an obscene treatment of women, as if their only real importance is as mindless uteri, wet nurses and nannies.

With all the confusion of Reg, Starhawk abruptly says something that is sort of right. "Once it is no long phsycally [sic] dependant [sic] on that ONE person it has developed enough to be considered too valuable to destroy. It has become a person.

Well yes, once it is born, the fetus is a baby and is physically apart from its mother and is a separate human entity. Only then does it have certain Rights that are legally enforceable. (The end of the third trimester constitutes a period of enormous moral difficulty for the mother considering abortion, but that decision remains off limits to others, to the law.)

Obviously a newborn cannot have full Rights, but it does have a Right to Life as a full human being (Janet, please note this). As a child it has a Right to suitable care, by virtue of the fact that the mother chose to bring it, physically, to the stage of being a member of society.

Only when it has developed to the point where it (ought to be)capable of grasping Human Rights, does it achieve full Rights.

~~~~

(I would point out that, there is a good reason why we frequently refer to murderers, rapists and the like as "animals", they do not recognize the Rights of their victims nor act accordingly.)

Starhawk said...

Here is my attempt at helping you "get" me Johnny. When I masturbate or have protected sex, there is no cellular connection that brings about a fetus (something that might someday become a baby), nothing has happened yet. At that point you're speaking of possibilities and what ifs. After that egg and sperm combine, a process has started that COULD result in the birth of a child. I believe that the potential of the life of that fetus still has SOME value. That value does not outweigh the choice the mother may have to not see the pregnancy to term. From what you have posted, I am led to believe that you believe potential life has no value. If that is the case, I will have a hard time "getting" you. Life must have some sort of intrinsic value otherwise, murder would only be a problem if there was a god; personally god or no god, killing is wrong. Here's a question for all here, at what point does a fetus/child/person have the right not to be terminated? I personally do not believe that a newborn child is much more than a basic animal... it seeks its basic needs and that is all. It takes time to gain independent thought and full sentience. That does NOT mean that it is acceptable to end that child's life. It's just that at that point the potential for it to become a full person is great enough to warrant it the right to live. Prebirth it is SO undeveloped and SO dependent upon another being that if that person decides not to undergo that drastic change, it is acceptable and understandable. Do you value life at all? Just because I have little faith in an all knowing all powerful god, does not mean that life (even the potential of life) has no value. If anything it has MORE value.

Oh and bridges would be a lot more boring if there wasn't the occasional troll underneath 'em.

Starhawk said...

Richard, in the end we are a collection of cells, most everything is. Perhaps I should clarify, we are an AWESOME collection of cells. The human brain is the single most amazing thing this world has seen. Even with all of our science and philosopher's, we don't understand all of its ins and outs. And I DO believe that the potential life DOES have value.
You twist my words though, I in no way implied that it overrules or disregards the actual fully developed life that is the woman involved. The argument of potential life has been used on a moral, social, and biological angle to undermine the woman's right to choose. Just because an argument has been abused does not invalidate the fact that part of the argument may have merit. A fetus CAN become a fully fledged, seemingly functioning person, we're living proof :) That should NOT under any circumstances take away from a woman the ability to decide at a certain stage of that potential not to go forward with a pregnancy. Upon reflection perhaps saying potential life has value should be rephrased to potential value, but the core of what I'm saying stands.

Poodles said...

See what happens when I look away...

I am pro choice AND pro abortion. I am also pro forced sterilization in some circumstances. I think men and women who are convicted of crimes against children should be sterilized. That is probably a bit of a hard stance, but that is just my belief, it isn't legal.

However abortion is legal and should remain so. The whole pro life argument rests on the idea of a soul which they cannot even prove exists.

There were abortions long before they became safe and legal. They were done in horrible surroundings with things like coat hangers, and many women died. If abortion is made illegal, the abortions will continue, it's just women who will die, not fetuses being destroyed. They will not decrease or go away.

The number of abortions in this country actually decreased during the Clinton presidency. When the economy is doing better and people are more secure with their finances and jobs abortions will drop in numbers, but Bush wouldn't know anything about that, the numbers have gone up during his regime.

Oh and Reg, I am one of those liberals who believes that basic health care should be a right not a privilege. BUT that is a whole different argument from abortion.

Janet said...

Yeah, sorry about that, I was going to go back and edit in that my children have a right to not be killed, but blogger won't let comment editing.

They don't have the right to life per se because you can't punish a disease for killing your child. But they do have the right to not be killed by another human or animal.

I also don't view it as my "right" to have children, to me, it is a privilege, and with that privilege is my responsibility to raise them as best as I can. This is why I waited until I was financially and emotionally ready to have kids before I finally did.

As for health care, well,I think every child should have AFFORDABLE health care. Again, due to financial planning, my children DO have access to health care, and so do I.

Reg Golb said...

Poodles, what a web you weave,
you are not a bleeding heart liberal, you are closer to a nazi. Forced sterilization, are you Josef Mengele?
And prosperity during Clinton, do you have memory loss? If he was so good for the economy, why did the stockmarket start falling while he was still in office? Because of his higher taxes. The prosperity was from previous administrations.

"However abortion is legal and should remain so. The whole pro life argument rests on the idea of a soul which they cannot even prove exists." Where is your proof of this statement. Fiery, you should require her to make a link when she has a claim like this.


Janet,
You are listening to poodles too much. If you think child bearing is a priveledge, are you considering some sort of license program?

You are all messed us on the healthcare topic too.
Kids need affordable healthcare? What are they gonna pay for it out of their allowance? "Little Johnny, your tonsils will have to come out, that will be two weeks allowance."

What if their parents are just too stupid to get insurance, too lazy, or they are hippies, or even "fundies"? You know, some people just don't get insurance by choice. They can still get healthcare, they just have to pay for it themselves.
And who determines what affordable is? Are you going to tell a doctor what his or her time is worth? Even little Johnny would know that is communism, except the public screwl system doesn't teach real history anymore.

Richard said...

Starhawk wrote, "Life must have some sort of intrinsic value otherwise, murder would only be a problem if there was a god; personally god or no god, killing is wrong."

I can see no reason for anyone to believe that Life has "intrinsic" value in any form, except to the organism itself. I use "intrinsic" in its full philosophic sense. There is nothing 'out there' that says Life, or even a green and blue planet, is a value.

The complex understanding that is required to value a Life is only possible by virtue of Man's conceptual faculty. Here I am not speaking of the biological attachment a bitch has for her pups.

I am speaking of the appreciation for life by which seeing a dead deer on the side of the road causes a certain sadness. Not to mention the enormous grief that can arise over the death of friends and family. Not only is the value that is their life gone, but we have also lost the living values they embodied.

The loss of a fetus for those who want to actualize its life is the loss of potentially enormous positive values but, it cannot be over-emphasized, only if they want it!

An enormous percentage of miscarried fetuses are quite healthy, but are aborted as a "collection of cells" for physiological reasons. A fetus aborted by the mother's choice is terminated for similarly legitimate reasons that arise from broader, non-physiological circumstances (though some reasons can be damned shallow, e.g. abortion as a substitute for birth control).

Tommy said...

"I was thinking, maybe we can take care of this thing in Brainerd."

REG GOLB is the poster boy for why abortion should be legal. Haha!

Rights begin at conception. Before that point, it is the pregnant woman's decision. We might not always feel comfortable about it, but there it is.

The need for surgical abortion will face over time due to advances in medical technology.

But the sad truth is that the fundies are not just anti-abortion rights. They are also anti-contraception rights. Any sex act that is not for the purpose of procreation is a sin in their eyes, and if men and women use birth control, then they are avoiding the consequences of sex.

A very warped mindset indeed.

Reg Golb said...

"But the sad truth is that the fundies are not just anti-abortion rights. They are also anti-contraception rights."

Yet another unfounded statement. Which will undoubted be given a free pass by the gang with integritas.

Fiery said...

First off, YAY blogger activity while I had my day off!!!!!! Lots of good discussions going on. :-D

A few points that I would like to have caught immediately, but didn’t.

Reg golb says…
My position.

Begins before conception [sic].

But we are not talking about what we believe, because what we believe doesn't change the fact that that lump-baby is alive somewhere between conception and birth. We can't prove when that is. But premies can survive very early now. That is what they call evidence that it is way before birth.


Golb, your position doesn’t even include a subject or a verb it is a phrase. What begins before conception golb? Life? How can something be alive before if it doesn’t even exist? Are you saying that my grandchildren are alive somewhere????? Or just that they are alive someWHEN?

Or do you mean the future human’s SOUL is alive before conception??? That brings on a whole realm of questions…. Does god provide a soul for every egg and sperm that ever existed? Or maybe he has a soul for every zygote (joining of egg and sperm). Maybe he saves souls by not providing souls for the blastocysts whose development goes awry and are spontaneously aborted by the body.

I must confess that I spent another 20 minutes exploring the various stages at which god might confer a soul upon a group of cells and whether or not he could save on souls by not providing ones for those that don’t make it to a live birth. But really, there is no point as it is a ridiculous strawman just begging to be taken down in flames.

Not one person on the planet would deny that the clump of cells resulting from egg+sperm has life. Of course it is alive, it is growing tissue. If it was dead, the body would abort the rotting tissue itself.

The real question is when does the tissue’s ABILITY to develop become MORE important than the woman whose body it is growing in.

As I said in my post, PRO-LIFE (read anti-abortion) is PRO-SLAVERY.

If a woman MUST bear every joining of egg+sperm to fruition than she is a slave to her womb.

Fiery said...

Richard says…
I cannot bear the evil in two of Starhawk's remarks! "...all of us aren't much more than a collection of cells."


Easy there Richard. Not everyone has given philosophy as much thought as you have. If you sense an error in thought, perhaps a gentler approach of pointing out an error would be better than calling someone evil. While you may see a sentence and take it to its full and logical philosophical conclusion, most people do not use words that way in everyday discussions. And this is an every day discussion. Starhawk is an intelligent young man and deserves the benefit of the doubt. He seems to have been using a literary technique of UNDER-exaggeration to make a point. Also, you seem to have dropped context. Starhawk said from the very beginning that he was absolutely FOR the woman’s right to choose, but that HE would never choose abortion. Starhawk will need to make very responsible decisions on which women receive his seed, lest he sew an oat in a woman who would rather have an abortion than his baby.

Richard says... OMFG
Richard, as I live and breathe, did you just drop the “F” initial? I am concerned that my blog is corrupting you. Pretty soon you might actually type “crap” and neglect to remove the vowel. ;-)

Fiery said...

Starhawk says…
From what you [Johnny] have posted, I am led to believe that you believe potential life has no value.


Value in what sense Starhawk? Potential life is just that potential. It is a possibility that has not yet been realized. Johnny believes a woman has a choice with her body, to bear or not to bear a child. He carries that choice to its natural conclusion. Abortion is a viable option. Period.

If that is the case, I will have a hard time "getting" you. Life must have some sort of intrinsic value otherwise, murder would only be a problem if there was a god; personally god or no god, killing is wrong.

“Life must have some sort of intrinsic value”. Human life, the life that begins at birth of course has value, that is why murder is wrong. Did you know that there were catholic missionaries who would take newborn babies, baptize them and murder them so they would go straight to heaven? Murder done in god’s name to get their souls to heaven.

Here's a question for all here, at what point does a fetus/child/person have the right not to be terminated?

Murder is a huge problem for me because this is the only life we are going to get. When then should life end? When it is no longer worth living. If the pain and misery of this life overshadow a person’s capacity to wrest joy from it, then it is time for that life to be over.

Some people find the thought of life in a vegetative state to be abhorrent, and have left written instructions to “pull the plug” should they ever slip into that.

Some people suffering hideous diseases have left “do not resuscitate” instructions in their medical file so that when their body shuts down, others do not fight to keep them alive.

How many pet owners have looked at their companion suffering from disease or old age and said, “Enough, beloved friend. You need suffer no more!” and called the veterinarian to come and put the animal out of its misery.

Wouldn’t that be kinder than to watch a loved one slowly die an agonizing and horrible death?

Life not worth living should be terminated.

What if having a baby would make one’s life not worth living? Sometimes the consequences of going through pregnancy and delivery can damage or even ruin one’s life, forever. Is it not better for the woman to prevent the ruination of her life or must she sacrifice hers for a potential?

Fiery said...

Poodles says …."However abortion is legal and should remain so. The whole pro life argument rests on the idea of a soul which they cannot even prove exists."

Reg golb replies….
Where is your proof of this statement. Fiery, you should require her to make a link when she has a claim like this.


It is not possible to prove a negative golb. Poodles can’t prove “there is no soul”. You golb, must provide the proof that there IS a soul. I for one can’t WAIT to see the links you will provide.

Poodles said...

Thanks Fiery. I was getting ready to post that exact "can't prove a negative" thing the fundies can't seem to understand.

Fiery said...

Tommy says…"But the sad truth is that the fundies are not just anti-abortion rights. They are also anti-contraception rights."

Reg golb replies…Yet another unfounded statement. Which will undoubted be given a free pass by the gang with integritas.


Yes golb, what Tommy says is unfounded, or at least exaggerated. Though I am guessing that he has based it at least partially on the catholic church’s notion of “no condoms” even for disease prevention, possibly even the Quiverfull’s who believe in as many babies as fast as possible?

But ya know what? I don’t know what Tommy is basing it on, because I haven’t asked him. If the statement doesn’t apply to you, or even other fundamentalists, why don’t you refute it instead of whining about it? Or better yet, ask Tommy directly to support his claims, instead of looking to others to smack his wrist.

Poodles said...

Oh and Reg, did you really call me a NAZI? Sieg Heil! *snicker*

Tommy said...

Since Reg Golb is attacking my integrity here, here are some links just to show you I didn't pull what I wrote out of my ass.

And I apologize in advance, I don't have it memorized how to do the blue links as I am doing this from work:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/santorum200507190728.asp

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/07/womens_rights_s.html

http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/PrivacyAutonomy.htm

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_rights_bitter_pill.php

As the links above demonstrate, the Religious Right wants to overturn Griswold, because it was the zone of privacy that Griswold allowed that set the foundation for Roe v. Wade.

Tommy said...

Darn, they get cut off!

Tommy said...

Let's try this again, shall we?

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/santorum200507190728.asp

Tommy said...

Oh darn. Will try it from home tonight.

And c'mon folks, you've already heard the cases of pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control because it went against their moral beliefs.

Richard said...

Heh Heh Heh

Tommy wrote,
"And c'mon folks, you've already heard the cases of pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control because it went against their moral beliefs.

I defend the pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense birth control pills as strongly as I defend the pharmacy owner's right to fire the pharmacist who chooses not to dispense them.

Richard said...

I wrote,
"...fundies are not just anti-abortion rights. They are also anti-contraception rights."

To which reg glob responded,
"Yet another unfounded statement."

I guess you haven't been following the really serious fundies in the Catholic church, and their influence on a large part of the world. African bishops loudly object to the use of condoms against AIDS because they view contraception as evil. They have even trumped up claims that European companies have shipped (purposefully) HIV infected condoms to Africa as the reason so many Africans have AIDS. Never mind that 96% of HIV transmission is through (hetero or homo) buggery -"The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" by Michael Fumento.

Richard said...

Fiery,

Well, okay Boss-lady ;-) To split a thick hair, I really didn't say Starhawk was evil, I said the statements were evil. And, of course I do not mean religious evil, I mean evil in the sense of representing disregard for the value of conceptual life. He improved his position well, which I thought was a good thing. [I did not read his profile... but please note that generally I attack ideas much more strongly than people, unless they wrongly attack me or reveal considerable intellectual dishonesty...as some trolls have done.]

I thought the F stood for "freakin' " ;-)

On a personal note concerning that reaction:
In the early 1980s during some field research I was involved in, I sat on some steps with about three PhD research biologists and two University biology professors. As the subordinate I listened in near shock as they discussed the pointlessness of the clump of cells that make up our bodies in a giant purposeless Universe.

Our minds, they agreed, just gave us the illusion that the things we do have any importance, and so we carry on because there really isn't anything else to do. None of it really matters in the grand mindless movement of celestial bodies, after all when the Sun supernova's Earth will vanish and no one and no thing will care about anything that happened there. Evolution of humans was just a blip of existence that was no more important than one of the rocks drifting in the rings of Saturn. The only reason we don't drive cars through crowds of people for fun, they agreed, was because 'believers' would retaliate against us on the grounds that we were offending their god.

I was nearly atheist at that point, but could not agree with them, nor could I return to religion. A few years later, I learned how serious a matter ethics can be without fear of a supernatural freak watching my every move.

Richard said...

Whoops, on that last post I started with "I wrote", it should have said, "Reg Glob quoted Tommy, and wrote, "
I didn't pay attention to the opener when checking spelling.

Since I am commenting again, I want to reiterate that I thought Starhawk's response to me was much better.

Looking at Starhawk's profile, I should like to suggest to him that not pursuing a University education may well save his mind... so long as he is careful with his learning.

And, yes fiery you are right, I did drop some context, because I did not re-read his prior comments. For that, I apologize to Starhawk for commenting so strongly.

That said, ideas DO drive the human world, and bad ideas, whether or not they are mixed with good ones, must still be exposed for what they are or they are given tacit sanction. Religious and collectivist (i.e. communist/socialist/nationalist/racist/tribalist) ideas have each caused more bloodshed than all independent criminals combined.

Reg Golb said...

Poodles says …."However abortion is legal and should remain so. The whole pro life argument rests on the idea of a soul which they cannot even prove exists."

Reg golb replies….
Where is your proof of this statement. Fiery, you should require her to make a link when she has a claim like this.

It is not possible to prove a negative golb. Poodles can’t prove “there is no soul”. You golb, must provide the proof that there IS a soul. I for one can’t WAIT to see the links you will provide.

I was refering to her statement that the "whole pro life argument". I will give you that this might be the case for many, even most, but to say the WHOLE is not true. Are all prolife (that is anti death) religious? I would doubt that very much.

Also, many prolifers are anti contraception but to his statement seems to suggest that all.

I think contraception could be a great debate as well. I don't like it because of other reasons.

Fiery said...

You think contraception should be debated? On what grounds????????

Harry Nads said...

A lot of priests and ministers don't have to worry about contraception, because they only have sex with little boys.

Starhawk said...

I scanned over this earlier last night and read a bit of the latest posts. When I got off work and sat down here, I thought I had a pretty good idea of what I was gonna type. Instead I've sat here for almost 2 hours reading and rereading all that has been stated. As I mentioned earlier I've had some rough edges on my thoughts on abortion. Thanks to the bouncing of ideas here I think most the kinks have been worked out.

Fiery asked: "Is it not better for the woman to prevent the ruination of her life or must she sacrifice hers for a potential?"

The woman should do what is right for her life. Nobody has the right to tell her otherwise. Abortions should be readily available to those who wish to have them.

I do not have children; I would very much like to someday. I know I am not financially or emotionally ready to have kids. No matter how much a part of me wishes to be a parent, it would not be good for them or for me right now. If I did unintentionally get a woman pregnant in the near future (which would be a feat given my lack of dating lately) I would wish to see the child to term. Right or wrong, it would put me too close to fatherhood for me to turn away from the opportunity. I'd just try to get my act together as well as I could.
If the hypothetical woman chooses to have an abortion despite my feelings? Well, after everything that has been said in this thread, I would certainly take it with much better grace and understanding.

I would place value on the possibility of life that came from part of my genetic make-up. That is because of what I want out of my life. It was incorrect of me to assume that it makes that value apply universally.

Starhawk said...

Also, you guys rock.

Fiery said...

Starhawk, thank you! I consider it the highest compliment to have someone come back repeatedly to my blog and then to have that person say they have been reading and rereading what has been written here.

Wow!

It rather puts me on the spot to consider my words carefully, make sure I mean what I say.

Glad you're here Starhawk!
Thanks for reading!

Richard said...

Starhawk,

In every way I can think of, that last full comment was very very well put.

Reg Golb said...

You think contraception should be debated? On what grounds????????

1. Failure rate.
A. failure to prevent pregnancy
B. failure to prevent disease
C. failure to acknowledge that sex is more than simply sex
D. failure to tell women the longterm effects of the pill
E. failure to be tell people the truth about God's plan for sex

you see, here is one example of an evidence for the Bible. If the Biblical model is followed, everyone would be better off. No STD's, no pregnancy out of wedlock, Very few abortions, no psychological abuse for unwed teens(girls wouldn't be called sluts etc).
The fact is, in human's, sex is not just sex.

Considering all the atheist views, the liberal views, it doesn't make sense to deny the previous facts.(except for E) Who gets hurt the MOST by premarital sex and all the potential pitfalls? the female gender.

But what has the agenda of the left propped up, safe sex is OK. What a lie. Now it has come to the point where people are injecting guardacil into 6th graders without knowing the longterm side effects.

What has the Bible done? told the truth about sex,

What has the left done? told a lie about safe sex, because there is no such thing.

Richard said...

I cannot imagine what Reg is 'thinking', but Poodles "whole pro-life argument" is certainly referring to the predominant argument. Few pro-lifers (in the anti-abortionist sense) come at it from non-religious viewpoints. We know there are black swans in Australia, but the general statement, "Swans are white." is not wrong. Nor is the statement "Man is a rational animal" even when so many are not rational or downright mentally handicapped.

Poodles, in the sense above, is quite right. Religionists, explicitly or implicitly, believe that there is an intrinsic something in the Universe (mainly, but not always, a godhead of some sort) that miraculously imbues living things with life and a soul. That 'something' is superior to them and mere humans are not to meddle with its grand purposes.

Such a view of the soul and of life is no different from primitive Indians praying to the god of the sea, or to their sacrifices of (notably) a life to the god of the sun, or the slaughter of a goat before a Nepalese Airline's Boeing 757 to ensure the sky god, Akash Bhairab, does not let it fall out of the sky.

I do think there is such a thing as a soul, but it is the product (or deepest sum) of one's thoughts and beliefs. It is the most fundamental essence of a person's character, and begins developing right at birth... e.g. a birth that is painful to the child may well influence its perception (not conception) of the new experience that is the world outside the womb.

My eldest, adopted, daughter was born of a diabetic mother who did not properly control her insulin during the pregnancy. My daughter was enormous when born (the birthing was difficult for all concerned) and, without the sugar load her mother provided, was very stressed for the first few days. She had the equivalent of night terrors frequently, even in the middle of the day, and was virtually inconsolable for hours.

I noticed that while screaming she seemed unaware of the world around her. I learned to expose her to unexpected things, and would quickly take her outside to see a cold winter moon, or surprise her with one of our pets, or a loudly played favorite tune or TV cartoon. Sometimes it took several tries over a period of an hour to calm her.

Her fits waned over a period of four years, but when she started school her teacher consulted us about her utter lack of speech, and advised we seek a therapist. We knew she could talk up a storm, but at school she was that afraid of her new surroundings away from home.

I still see her fear of new things on a weekly basis. It is in her soul, and I hope she will overcome it, as I believe "Man is a being of self-made soul" and is better off when he understands that it is in his control rather than held in thrall to Allah, God, Jehovah or Gitchie Manitou.

Tommy said...

Reg, I have a 100% success rate with condoms!

If everyone followed the Bible, all sex would be fumbling, awkward encounters in the dark because we would all be brainwashed into believing that it was something that we shouldn't enjoy. The man gets on, humps until he cums, and then rolls over and goes to sleep. How romantic.

And what makes a marriage holy or sacred by the way? This is something I intend to explore in a post in the near future. Are marriages between people who are Hindus or Buddhists or animists sacred, or are they not valid because they were not Christian marriages? If a teenage girl is forced into an arranged marriage with an older, wealthy man, is that marriage sacred because a priest might have mumbled a few words from scripture and declared the couple married in the eyes of God? Or the daughter of a king being married off to the prince of a neighboring kingdom to seal an alliance?

Tommy said...

"God's plan for sex." That's funny.

Reg Golb said...

Tommy,

Nice of you to leave out the nonreligious arguements.

"If everyone followed the Bible, all sex would be fumbling, awkward encounters in the dark because we would all be brainwashed into believing that it was something that we shouldn't enjoy. The man gets on, humps until he cums, and then rolls over and goes to sleep. How romantic"

Big fat lie.

"And what makes a marriage holy or sacred by the way? This is something I intend to explore in a post in the near future. Are marriages between people who are Hindus or Buddhists or animists sacred, or are they not valid because they were not Christian marriages? If a teenage girl is forced into an arranged marriage with an older, wealthy man, is that marriage sacred because a priest might have mumbled a few words from scripture and declared the couple married in the eyes of God? Or the daughter of a king being married off to the prince of a neighboring kingdom to seal an alliance?"

Here is another stupid argument when you can't refute my truthful claims.

You have a %100 success rate. that is not hard to imagine, you are the guy. You envision sex as "you get on, humps until you cums, and then you roll over and go to sleep." I am glad you have such a FULL understanding of sex.
Save us from your juvenile understanding of sex.

Harry Nads said...

Reg,

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Hmmm... nothing talking about procreation there. Sounds like rape to me.

Harry Nads said...

More great items about sex (rape) in your Holy Bible:

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

So the rapist must marry the victim. Nice. So if you wanted to marry someone in particular, even if she didn't want to marry you, all you would have to do is rape her. Thank God for these awesome moral laws.

Reg Golb said...

What is your point. This is stating what will happen, not that it is the model for sex.

You can attack the religious aspect of my comment, fine. Just try to refute the rest of my points, A-D. Can't be done reasonably.

Harry Nads said...

Is God pro-life?

“Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Hosea 9:11-16

Looks like a big "no."

Harry Nads said...

"you see, here is one example of an evidence for the Bible. If the Biblical model is followed, everyone would be better off. No STD's, no pregnancy out of wedlock, Very few abortions, no psychological abuse for unwed teens(girls wouldn't be called sluts etc)."

I was simply showing that the Biblical model is not a good, moral model.

Tattooed & Atheist (T&A) said...

"What has the Bible done? told the truth about sex"

First of all, the bible is man made. The Old Testament or the Pentateuch are nothing more than a collection of folk tales written down long after the events in it supposedly happened. Same with the New Testament, the Gospels were all written between 100 and 200 CE. LONG AFTER Jesus was supposed to be around.



So how is a book that not only isn't factually accurate, but has been translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and English, supposed to hold the absolute truth about anything? Especially sex!

While ideal, abstinence just doesn't work. I agree that teens having sex is a bad idea. But to pretend they won't is naive and foolish.

Here are some clinical studies that demonstrate my point:

"CHILDREN who TOOK PART in SEX ABSTINENCE CLASSES were FOUND to be JUST as LIKELY to ENGAGE in SEXUAL INTERCOURSE for the FIRST TIME at the SAME AGE as children who DID NOT RECEIVE these classes, say researchers from Mathematica Policy Research Inc, in a study the US Congress had ordered. According this latest research, teenagers first had sex at the age of 14.9 years, REGARDLESS of whether they attended sex abstinence classes"

Source: medicalnewstoday.com via publicreader

A new study has shown that contraception, not abstinence, is behind declines in teen pregnancy. Researchers from Columbia University and the Guttmacher Institute took a nation-wide look at why it is that teen pregnancy rates are down. In 1995, there were just under 100 pregnancies for every 1,000 teenage women age 15-19, according to the Guttmacher Institute (the figures vary slightly among the three major sources for teen pregnancy rates – the Guttmacher Institute, the National Center for Health Statistics, and the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion).

"By 2002, this had gone down to just over 75 per 1,000. According to the new study, 86 percent of the decline is attributable to the use of contraception, while only 14 percent is attributable to abstinence."

Source:

So Reg, you are welcome to your ideals, but the fact of the matter is, reality trumps ideology every time.

Tattooed & Atheist (T&A) said...

Sorry, I don't know what happened to my links I provided! The HTML didn't process!

Tattooed & Atheist (T&A) said...

"C. failure to acknowledge that sex is more than simply sex"

While A,B, and D have some merit to your argument, this one is your opinion and not fact.


What exactly do you mean by this? If you mean that there are ramifications for sex, (i.e. pregnancy, STD's, parental obligations) and sex education doesn't teach children this, then you are misguided. Sex education classes teach that abstinence is the best course of action because of the consequences of sexual activity. But they also acknowledge the reality that teens will experiment, and that contraception is the best course of action.

Now, if you mean that sex is a "god given" gift that is supposed to be kept holy or used only for procreation, then that is you and your religion's belief.

Poodles said...

Ok Reg... here you go. From http://www.faith.org.uk/Publications/Magazines/Mar07/Mar07ProLifeStrategyAndARgumentsForTheSoul.html

"One dimension of the anti-life culture to which Church documents and pro-life movements in general have, as yet, paid little attention is the denial of the spiritual soul in each human person. Much pro-life argument focuses on the contradiction inherent in the liberal secular fight for the ‘human rights’ of various adult minority groups whilst simultaneously denying the most basic right to life to the unborn. Such pro-life argument typically points out that to justify this pro-abortion position by claiming that the unborn child is not human is at best biologically incoherent and at worst dangerously self-defeating philosophical myopia.

And from: http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/1015/Human_Personhood_Begins_at_Conception.html

" We have human souls, and plants do not; that’s why we can know ourselves and plants can’t. Functionalism makes the elementary mistake of confusing the sign with the thing signified, the smoke with the fire."

SHALL I GO ON?

The religious part of the pro life movement believes that "the soul" begins at conception... The mormons take it further eluding to "spirit babies".

A glob of cells known as a fetus is just that. A glob of cells that is hosted by the mother.

And if sex is for procreation then why the orgasm? Why can a man orgasm by having their prostate stimulated through their rectum?

Poodles said...

Sorry that last part should have read "if sex is ONLY for procreation".

Reg Golb said...

I know there is % of people, like Tommy, who have the stop, drop and roll mentality of sex.
I am refering the the simple fact that sex for human is not simply a physical event. There are ramification beyond the physical ones, That is what I meant.

I probably should have left E out. When you guys hear anything about God, you just lose all rationality. So lets just forget I said it. ;)

Reg Golb said...

Poodles,

What are you talking about?

Fiery said...

golb,

half way up the page you demanded that Poodles provide links for this claim that she made, "However abortion is legal and should remain so. The whole pro life argument rests on the idea of a soul which they cannot even prove exists."

You asked for them, she provided them.

Reg Golb said...

Great, she picked a couple of Catholic sites and now she has proved her point. All prolifers are like she said.

Poodles said...

I would agree that there are more ramifications for sex. Birth control practiced correctly and religiously (sic) can prevent those ramifications. And just because someone enters into a "god sanctioned marriage" does not mean that they should then just start having kids either... Ask Susan Smith or Andrea Yates. Sometimes it is better to have sex without there being babies involved.

Reg Golb said...

agreed

Poodles said...

Oh and Reg, this is from the ProLife toolkit website http://www.prolifetoolkit.com/

"The Bible tells us that of all God's creations on Earth, mankind alone is created in the image of God. That is, each man or woman has the unique essence of God- an eternal spirit, or soul. We should tremble at the prospect of killing- or advocating the killing of- another person made in God's image."

Since the other two were so incomprehensible.

Tommy said...

Reg deliberately distorts me again.

You portray my position as:

"You have a %100 success rate. that is not hard to imagine, you are the guy. You envision sex as "you get on, humps until you cums, and then you roll over and go to sleep." I am glad you have such a FULL understanding of sex.
Save us from your juvenile understanding of sex."

WRONG! I wrote that it the Biblical version of sex, not mine.

It's your camp that does not want people to enjoy sex, not mine. Now go throw yourself in front of an oncoming train and help to make the world a better place!

Reg Golb said...

you speak of that which you do not know.
it is your camp that says, go ahead, have all the safe sex you want. don't worry about std's you can use a condom,
Don't worry about unwanted pregnancy, you can use the pill, a condom, anyway if you do get pregnant, it is only a lump of tissue and you can abort it (even though it is bad for the female)
don't worry about the psychological damage that could result, sex is just an act. You might as well do it, everyone else is.

That is your camp.

Mine says
Sex is a wonderful thing to be shared with your spouse. It is a means of intimacy that is unmatched in all the world. If you and your spouse wait for marriage, you NEVER have to worry about std's. If you truly love each other then you won't have psychological problems, And there are methods to prevent pregnancy. But if you do get pregnant, then keep the baby or give it up for adoption because abortion is detrimental to the womens health.


A you all think you are so caring about the women. HA

Tommy, your childish whining is giving away your age. You probably aren't even old enough to buy a condom. Oh yeah, you middle school probably gives them away.

Poodles said...

Reg, please site your medical sources that state that abortion is bad for a woman's health.

Fiery said...

Janet, welcome to my blog! I feel horribly remiss in not saying something right away when you posted. The only thing I can think is that your comments just fit in so well that you seemed like a familiar face.

So- a very belated welcome to my blog! I hope to see you again!

Janet said...

*blushing* Thanks fiery! *waves*

Tommy said...

Wrong again Reg!

My camp says that sex is potentially dangerous and that while abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid unwanted pregnancy or stds, if you are going to engage in sexual activity, then condoms properly used will greatly reduce the chances of pregnancy or infection.

My camp says that sex should not be indulged in promiscuously or recklessly, but should be done responsibly.

And I am not whining, it's just that you're such a douchebag.

Reg Golb said...

Tommy,
I realize this is off topic, but how can an atheist partake in the writing of a Christian. (LOTR)

Fiery said...

Because LOTR is fantastic INSPITE of JRR Tolkien's religious beliefs.

YAY LOTR!!!!

And wahooo for Peter Jackson's brilliant interpretation.

LOTR extended edition- best movie trilogy EVER EVER EVER

Fiery said...

Oh, and Tommy, if you're going to use Faramir's picture, do me a favor and comment regularly so I can look at that handsome face.
:-)

Other acceptable pictures are Aragorn's and Legolas' mmmmmmm Legolas. *sigh*

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

Reg,

I take great joy in the fantasy world created by Tolkien.

Your question to Tommy is so ridiculous as to be infantile.

I gather you would partake in some of the advances in science forged by Atheist scientists?

Grow up and get back to making semi-rational arguments.

Harry Nads said...

This is just a space-filler to help get to 100 comments. :)

Richard said...

I thought it was pretty funny that Reg complains because he thinks the minute he mentions God WE atheists all loose OUR rationality.

Reg, just how does a mind that accepts huge amounts of life instruction from that which is everywhere at once, yet in whose image we are created, even begin to know what rationality is?

Ramadan is coming everyone, get your prayer mats and crumple before God while starving all day.

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

And while Tolkien was a Christian(and a Catholic, interesting how Catholics are christians when it suits you hey?) the myths on which he built his secondary world were largely Northern European and Pagan.

What I find amazing is that one guy was able to ceate a world and a mythology that was more interesting, more coherent and more believable than the utter filth that exits in the first 20 pages of the bible.

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

Sauron has nothing on Yaweh

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

The argument could be made that Frodo is indeed a Christ like figure, his cross the ring, his sacrifice bearing it and destroying it on behalf of the free peoples losing the will to exist in the mortal realm and crossing over to the west where he lives for ever in the undying lands.

But then we can put this all in perspective and see the bible, the lord of the rings as a continuation of the hero myth spanning human existance.


All of which is going in to too much detail about what is essentially a rollicking good tale.

Fiery said...

Did anyone else stop after the words "Ramadan is coming" and snicker for a bit before reading the rest?

Poodles said...

MMMMM Legolas. MMMMMM....

And unlike some christians who would ban anything done by an atheist, I'm ok with liking stuff with christian based themes, writers or musicians. I'm secure enough in my beliefs that I won't be swayed by a good looking elf.

Reg Golb said...

While LOTR is a great fantasy and my favorite movie, "the God Delusion" would definitely Top it. Come on Richard, you should fund it.

Johnny said...

From what you have posted, I am led to believe that you believe potential life has no value. If that is the case, I will have a hard time "getting" you. Life must have some sort of intrinsic value Starhawk a topic, and being questioned on a topic, like this is a great opportunity to really gather your thoughts on things. I hope you didn't take my comments as having a go directly at you. The "getting" bit didn't mean anything other than I wasn't sure wether you were equating murder with abortion with the way you made that argument is all. The little ditty from monty python was actually aimed a globs "before conception" rubbish.
Having said that I still stand by what I have said and I do not believe that there is any intrinsic value to life whatsoever...I do believe life has value but it is strictly an extrinsic value. I believe life grows in value with the person.
I do not have children; I would very much like to someday. I know I am not financially or emotionally ready to have kids. No matter how much a part of me wishes to be a parent, it would not be good for them or for me right now. If I did unintentionally get a woman pregnant in the near future (which would be a feat given my lack of dating lately) I would wish to see the child to term. Right or wrong, it would put me too close to fatherhood for me to turn away from the opportunity. I'd just try to get my act together as well as I could.
Starhawk I have been doing what Fiery has accused Richard of and that is arguing from deeply thought about philisophical standpoints especially re the use of words such as intrinsic and extrinsic but when it comes down to real life I am like you and I think most rational people are. It's ridiculous to me to think that if you legalise something like abortion then all of a sudden abortion will become "hip" and everyone will want one, same goes for euthenasia. I have been in exactly the situation you have just described Starhawk and did exactly what you said you would do. It put me too close to fatherhood for me to turn away the opportunity and really there was no reason for us not to have our child, we both value life as most normal human beings do. Now I have a wonderful rational beautiful 11 year old whose life I now value more than my own.

It raises an interesting point too, as far as value goes. Intrinsically means that the life itself is valuable for no other reason than it being life (I believe the only intrinsic value that might be attributed to life is that it is a more perfect state to exist than to not exist I don't think that has anything to do with value though)
We talk about potential in life but potential can swing both ways people have the potential to be good yes but what about the potential for bad...was Hitler's life "valuable" or would the world have been better if he was terminated before birth? Is a doctors life more valuable than a bum's life? Is the life of someone suffering from an incurable disease that causes great stress and pain to that someone more valuable than ending the suffering?

Richard said...

Another nice post from Johnny. At its end he asks:
"Is a doctors life more valuable than a bum's life?"

Doesn't that question presume
1) a judgment independent of human judgment, or,
2) a judgment attempting to value a person according to the good of the collective?

And, don't both get used to oppose abortion?

In the latter version I have often heard the fantasy suggestion that one should not abort a fetus because it might be the next Einstein. Of course another Einstein is presumed to be good for humanity as a whole, so the mother should sacrifice twenty years of her own life for the collective sake of humanity.

The good of the Collective was the rationalization by which Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Guevera etc. It's a dangerous notion, however innocently expressed (as I think Johnny is doing here).

If the bum is my best friend suffering some terrible financial failure that was not his fault, then he is a value to ME. He may also be a value to HIMSELF. You may choose the doctor, the bum and I may not.

We each must choose such things purely according to our most rational values, and except for speech, leave others alone to choose. No laws should require that any one act against his choice.

Therefore, the choice to end suffering is the sufferer's. Ending his life may be the rational thing to do and therefore he should be free to do so. His life is his and his alone. It would not be euthanasia, but rational suicide. Since many people commit suicide due to severe irrationality, any assisted suicides should also include an impartial medical judgment by which those assisting the suicide cannot be held responsible for causing a wrongful death.

No such medical judgment is needed for abortion... it just does not apply.

Richard said...

Sorry, I hit Publish rather than Preview.

"by which Mao" should say
"of Mao"

OzAtheist said...

Exactly.
As you say, apart from abortions those clinics provide many other useful health services.

Those four fundies should be ashamed of themselves, they are a disgrace to all womanhood.

Reg Golb said...

Kind of like Hilary Clinton.

Fiery said...

Hillary's not a woman she's a politician.

Fiery said...

OzAtheist, welcome to my blog! I recognize your name from over on Sean's blog, thanks for poppin' in to say hi! :-D

Always love adding another Aussie to the list. ;-)

tina said...

Did someone say, Aragorn?:)

Fiery said...

Hi Tina!!!! *waves* Hey look everyone, Tina's back! She was the very first person who commented on my blog. YAY!!!!!
:-D

And yes, yes I did say Aragorn. Vigo is mmmmmm yummy as Aragorn/Strider.

Reg Golb said...

A bunch of my student and I made costumes and dressed up for the debut of the ROTK. I dressed up as aragorn. Thought you might like to know that.

Larro said...

I remember driving around town one day (that's my job; I drive senior citizens around...it's a lot of fun believe me).
Well, there were these protesters at one of the busiest intersections in town and I noticed them waving some macabre placards graphically depicting "partial birth" abortion fetuses. Kinda low stooping to this morbid tactic.

Oh, I'm Tina's son BTW.

Larro said...

It's a womans right period. And I don't care to here any bullshit about "murder".

Tommy said...

Hey Fiery.

I chose the Faramir image because I identify in some ways with his character.

He is someone who is not looking for glory or self aggrandizement. In the book, he is not tempted by the ring because he understands its danger. Though he fights when he has to, he takes no pleasure in it.

TLOTR, while having Christian themes, is very subtle about it. In fact, it never occurred to me that the story had Christian themes until I had read about it. On the other hand, C.S. Lewis practically beats the reader over the head with his Christian allegories in the Narnia series.

Reg Golb said...

What are you scared of Larro, the truth?

And it is a good thing Tina "chose life"

Fiery said...

Hi Larro! Welcome to my blog. A bit late in coming, sorry about that.

Looks like reg is back, whew. I thought we'd lost him when he didn't come back for a day or two. And what's an atheist blog without it's resident fundy? Do you suppose they are assigned??????? Wouldn't that be a riot.

"Ok- golb- you're assigned to Atheist Homeschooler and Atheist Rants... What do you mean you've been banned at Poodles blog? Jeepers Reg can't you keep your nose clean? I know, I know, those darn atheists.... we'll just have to pray about it. Well keep on that Fiery, she could crack any day now, and some of her readers are lookin' a bit shakey as well, fightin' amongst themselves. Go with god, reg."

*SNERK*

tina said...

I had to choose life, I was dirt poor and didn't have money for an abortion. I was stupid and 15 years old. I won't go into all the background of my life, really none of anyone's business. Why do fundies like to drag mom's in on things? I had that problem over at Atheist Havens blog. A really rude and crude dude. An ass, but what do you expect.

Fiery said...

Praise jeebus the praying work, the ban has been lifted on Poodles' blog, reg is back in the game!

tina said...

Oh, Fiery, Atheist Haven has two assigned to his blog...Shaun and DRD. Ohhh, that's because Larro is a Co-Writer there...

Fiery said...

Tina,

BWAHAHAHA!!! I have gone through 3 fundies. My first, Dani, tucked tail and disappeared quite rapidly, reg golb has come and gone at least one other time, temporarily replaced by telmeimwrong. Although there has been speculation that those two are one and the same person.

*looks around* Ya never know when they'll pop up.

*bwoop*

Poodles said...

I think we need to create a "wack a fundie" type game. We list atheist blogs then the fundies start popping their heads up in them and we get to hit them on the heads with really big hammers labeled "truth".

Now, maybe if we could get one going at a carnival...

Reg Golb said...

Too bad you didn't get grow up in today's world Tina, your middle school would have given you the pill.

Johnny said...

What are you scared of Larro, the truth?

And it is a good thing Tina "chose life"
Too bad you didn't get grow up in today's world Tina, your middle school would have given you the pill.

you are such a snide cunt glob!! If she had chosen or was able to choose to have an abortion then her progeny that were aborted would never have been people to care that they were aborted in the first place!! If my mother for some reason aborted me instead of having me I would never have existed, apart from the small amount of time as a few cells, to care!! You fucking poster boy for abortion

Richard said...

Dammit Poodles,
Here I am spending too much time on this blog. Now, because of you I am LMAO.

Richard said...

Tina wrote,
"Why do fundies like to drag mom's in on things?"
I suggest it is because they believe their morality is "the Way, the Light and the Truth". As child-bearers Mom's are particularly important targets.

As children of the fundies' God, you mom's must be 'saved', which means you must adopt their God's morals and lifestyle. However implicitly, fundies, like fundy Muslims, believe Evil will win over and steal "God's Universe" unless they fight back for His sake. [Apparently their God cannot fight his own battles, except when he works in 'wondrous ways', where 'wondrous' means "indiscernible".]

Furthermore, mom's produce God's children, so any pregnancy is a work of God. Whatever may interfere with child-bearing is particularly Evil. Eve sinned by eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge you know, so her weaknesses must be quashed. Damn that knowledge to Hell!! You mom's have to shape up and get religiously mindless--as Eve was before she ate from the Tree--, or you will suffer 'eternal damnation'.

(To fundies, damnation exists apart from human thought --which is the characteristic Intrinsicism of all religious thinking.)

Richard said...

Johnny wrote, "you are such a snide cunt glob!!".

While I rather agree with the sentiment intended, I have noticed (in women I have been intimate with) a certain principle at work which I think is well worth resisting:

The association of disgusting and negative things by the use of slang sexual terms for emphasis, plays into a certain mindset that has arisen through religion. The mindset is that sex and our sexual organs are filthy and indulgent use of them should be avoided if one is to be 'pure' and 'good'.

This particularly effects women's sense of security even in genuine and proper lovemaking, though obviously not all.

By the time these women are adults many are uncomfortable with sex and, legitimately concerned that a man may not be genuine, fear that frequent sex, or substantially varied sexual behavior (shall we say) implies he is not genuine or that she is a slut or animal and/or that he will think less of them.

By engaging in the use of sexual expletives, those negative connotations are readily accepted in a world where most people absorb such notions unexamined.

Guys, such language is self defeating!!! And rather unfair to the women we so adore. I much prefer scatological and religious swearing. I should like to point out that there is one sex related swear word, that if properly understood, is legitimate. Oddly enough, that word is "fuck". The term originally only referred to animals and was later applied, rightfully, to mindlessly stupid sexual activity among humans. It's use, technically, is therefore not a part of the issue I raise above. To the extent that others do not understand that finer point, I tend to avoid using it except among those who understand it as such... unless I've slammed my finger in a car door and can't get it out!

Richard said...

I still had to edit that last long paragraph, but won't now as the main idea is still there.

There is a linguistic matter about swearing too:

Swear words are also a poor substitute for actual denigration or emphasis, especially in writing. When one creates a much wittier insult or emphasis in proper language, one achieves a much better 'win' or success in making the point memorable.

Poodle's "wack a mole", "fly at a picnic" etc. achieves that denigration with simple ease, and it's way more fun!!

Poodles said...

Thanks Richard you make me blush, and give me too much credit. I mostly have a potty mouth.