There’s always adoption.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why do you hate
- Thread starter Avatar4321
- Start date
Do you support some abortions of healthy fetus?NoBut you still support all abortions, right?
I don’t see how. I support each state deciding for itself.Dodge!I don't make that choice. Never have. It should be up to each state to decide.I think achondrogenesis is a powerful justification for abortion. I have yet to hear what you'd say to a mother that just found out her baby has achondrogenesis. Would you allow her to make the choice or will you make it for her?I'm not the one using achondrogenesis to justify their support of abortion. You are.
You do realize the vast majority of abortions are abortions of healthy babies, right? As in babies that don't have achondrogenesis.
Now let me flip that around on you, a mother found out her baby doesn't have achondrogenesis, would you allow her to abort it?
Let me rephrase. You use it to justify abortion of some healthy fetus.Untrue.Except you have been using it to justify all abortions.Apples and oranges. There should be, and there are, different rules for different situations. Much as you'd like it to be, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Sorry but this is the real word.No. I highlighted that you were using a miniscule number of unhealthy babies to rationalize the killing of millions of healthy babies. It's that whole defining the rule through exception thingee I was telling you about.I was talking about babies with Achondrogenesis. You changed that to "healthy human lives".Used to rationalize the ending of healthy human lives.
Seems dishonest to me.
Seems dishonest to me.
No. I suspect proponents of abortion will object to making women suffer through that surgery.In 150 years from now there will an artificial uterus in which a woman will be able to transfer her embryo avoiding the need for abortion and also the need for going through pregnancy. Such a device exist today but has only been tested with lambs. We are years away from one that can take an embryo or fetus younger than 21 weeks but it's coming and you can bet the religious right will want it ban because God intended women to suffer through pregnancy.In the end slavery lost and so will abortion. 150 years from now people will look back at abortion like we look back at slavery. People are not property to be disposed of at the will of their owner.It was inevitable that it would swing this way just like it was inevitable that slavery would swing that way.It's all of our business. The fact that the pendulum is swinging the other way is proof that it is our business.
The pendulum swinging the other way is proof you're going to try to make it your business. It will prove to be a mistake. No matter how much you may want to control society, there's only so much government can do. Overreaching always fails. Liberals and conservatives alike enamored with the idea that they can reshape society in their own image by passing laws. They are wrong.
Prohibition is a much better comparison. Self-righteous zealots hell-bent on forcing their faith on others. In the end, they lost. So will you.
It actually sounds like the most dangerous option.
Anathema
Crotchety Olde Man
People who claim they at one time really believed almost unfailngly give a list of chores as proof.
I find that so interesting.
That’s nice. I come from a family with a long history of service in the church, up to and including the clergy. I bought into the lies for far too long before realizing the truth; and unfortunately it required my father’s death to make it happen.
TrueTT
Silver Member
I lean liberal on almost everything.
Everything but abortion. Unless in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother......the idea of tax dollars being allocated towards allowing every Rebecca, Jane and Ashley in the world who wish to terminate a prospective human being just because they couldn’t be bothered being on the pill, ensuring her man is wearing a condom, or demanding that he pull out....is fcking sickening.
Right. So we understand from your post that all decisions about sex and prevention of pregnancy fall to the woman. Yet, you then insist that no choices are allowed for women when it comes to consequences of unwanted pregnancy.
Isn't that convenient.
If you can’t live with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.... then close your damn legs.
Vibrators are quite popular you know? And from what my female friends tell me, quite the worthwhile investment.
That was quite a sidestep. You simply deny any responsibility for your actions and place blame on others for your stunted emotional growth.
See, this is where you are so wrong.
Unlike the women in question- your fellow women who you feel compelled to defend for god knows what reason- as a male, I actually understand the implications of not wearing a condom. Seeing as I have no intention of ever fathering a child, whenever I do capitulate to my carnal impulses I make sure to:
1) carry latex in my wallet
2) make sure the girl is on birth control before foreplay even ends
3) if the answer to 2) is a negative, then I don’t proceed
4) if the answer to 2) is in the affirmative, I ensure that I pull out nonetheless.
So spare me this bullsht sob posting about me “shifting the burden of responsibility” onto the women.
I have slept with a handful of women in my life. Guess what? None ever got pregnant. Contrary to what you think, women and men can both indeed take the necessary steps to stifle unwanted pregnancies.
That’s quite the reversal from your earlier blathering.
No, no it really isn’t.
My point is quite simple and consistent: if you are not sure you can avoid an unwanted pregnancy by taking all the requisite measures, then you (both the men and the women) should abstain.
But if there is an unwanted pregnancy- and provided it doesn’t occur under the circumstances of rape, incest or threatens the life of the mother- then it is not fair for the woman to do “as she pleases with her body” and terminate the child. Nor is it correct for the man to pressure the woman into getting an abortion, or chalk up to being unable to provide for the child so he’s entitled to just walk away.
If you wanted stricter punishment or legal enforcement of a man’s responsibility- akin to the obligation to pay for child support upon a divorce- then I am all for ruminating on what’s possible.
But why can’t you see that a woman deciding to terminate simply because it’s inconvenient is absolutely obscene? It’s simple murder at that point.
TrueTT
Silver Member
I lean liberal on almost everything.
Everything but abortion. Unless in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother......the idea of tax dollars being allocated towards allowing every Rebecca, Jane and Ashley in the world who wish to terminate a prospective human being just because they couldn’t be bothered being on the pill, ensuring her man is wearing a condom, or demanding that he pull out....is fcking sickening.
Right. So we understand from your post that all decisions about sex and prevention of pregnancy fall to the woman. Yet, you then insist that no choices are allowed for women when it comes to consequences of unwanted pregnancy.
Isn't that convenient.
If you can’t live with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.... then close your damn legs.
Vibrators are quite popular you know? And from what my female friends tell me, quite the worthwhile investment.
That was quite a sidestep. You simply deny any responsibility for your actions and place blame on others for your stunted emotional growth.
See, this is where you are so wrong.
Unlike the women in question- your fellow women who you feel compelled to defend for god knows what reason- as a male, I actually understand the implications of not wearing a condom. Seeing as I have no intention of ever fathering a child, whenever I do capitulate to my carnal impulses I make sure to:
1) carry latex in my wallet
2) make sure the girl is on birth control before foreplay even ends
3) if the answer to 2) is a negative, then I don’t proceed
4) if the answer to 2) is in the affirmative, I ensure that I pull out nonetheless.
So spare me this bullsht sob posting about me “shifting the burden of responsibility” onto the women.
I have slept with a handful of women in my life. Guess what? None ever got pregnant. Contrary to what you think, women and men can both indeed take the necessary steps to stifle unwanted pregnancies.
That’s quite the reversal from your earlier blathering.
Yawn. Try harder, cupcake.
There are stories of mothers who once they gave birth to the unwanted child became a good mother and raised the child. This a lot more fantasy than fact. In the good old days when women were forced to give birth to a child they did not want, they surrendered them for adoption, refuse to take them, left them on doorsteps, threw them in trash cans, or kept them as long as the government paid for them.OR genetically engineered fetuses.So it's like her property, right?Doesn't matter. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. This in not a matter of conjecture. This is a scientific fact based on empirical evidence.
So it is not just any human life, it is a very specific human life. One that should be afforded legal rights. Specifically the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Which are our country's founding values.
Doesn't matter. Until the mother cuts it it loose, a fetus isn't a separate person, and it's none of your business. Claiming that it is, and having government intervene, is laying claim to the mother's uterus as state property. That is unacceptable and far more dangerous than the abortion problem.
Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?
She can do with it as she likes, right?
Exactly, yeah. That might be upsetting to those of you who believe the fetus is a fully formed person, waiting to emerge - but it's the only way it can really work. What you're proposing creates a nightmare scenario where government is in control of our inner bodily processes. No thanks.
Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?
If we actually ban all abortions, what happens to the resulting babies since the parent(s) don't want them? According to pro-lifers, there are over a million abortion in the US. There are only 87,000 adoptions in the US excluding step parent adoptions. That mean we would have potentially, 913,000 unwanted un-adopted babies. That is more than twice the number of kids now in foster care.
you ever considered that the mother take care of her child???
There are about 150,000 adoptions a year. If you disregard, step parent adoption, there only about 87,000. If pro-livers have their way, there will be an additional 913,000 unwanted children, over twice the number of children in foster care. Where do think homes for those kids are going come from and who is going to pay for it.There’s always adoption.I don't believe proponents of abortion are evil. Just misguided.The only disagreement I have with what you've written is ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED. A fine sentiment but an impossible goal since there is a fundamental conflict in people's values. I think pro-lifers honestly believe pro-choicers are evil and will never compromise their values on this issue.It is you who see no difference between an egg and an adult, not me. I see fundamental changes in the development of a baby.
Dear alang1216
The REAL issues being missed aren't about the egg or fetus vs. mother at all.
A. Laws aren't addressing the MEN in the decisions to have sex
that LEAD to either unwanted pregnancy or abortion.
If we start addressing that, where both partners are EQUALLY
responsible BEFORE SEX AND PREGNANCY OCCUR
then we rewrite the whole equation instead of focusing
on just the "egg or fetus vs the adult mother"
Where is the FATHER or the MAN in all this?
That's one thing missing causing DISPARITY from the start.
B. The Constitutional part missed
Instead of focusing on
* rights of the mother or woman's due process
* rights of the unborn child
Where people WOULD be equal is respecting BELIEFS EQUALLY -- NOT creating situations
or passing laws that violate the BELIEFS of one person or group or another
So REGARDLESS if we are
* prochoice IN BELIEFS
and don't believe legislation against abortion are fair or practical, or we are
* prolife in BELIEFS
and don't believe any other rights or laws should disparage the right to life of the unborn
the CONSTITUTION would require
* NO SUCH BELIEFS either be Prohibited NOR Established where it compromises others
(ie with both prochoice and prolife beliefs, both are guaranteed protection of the laws
instead of violating one or the other by passing biased laws)
* No such rights should be DISPARAGED or compromised
but ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED
IN order to achieve that, clearly we cannot intervene AFTER pregnancy occurs because WE DON'T AGREE at that point.
The place we CAN agree is at the point we AVOID unwanted pregnancy to begin with.
So that's where we need to focus
in order to satisfy ALL beliefs and rights, and violate NONE of them.
Also ding don't forget there is a logical
and legal distinction between
* advocating ABORTION
* and "opposing laws banning or regulating
abortion ineffectively" (so as to impact women more than
men especially in cases where men coerce
women into sex and pregnancy but suffer
no legal responsibility that are pushed onto women)
Prolife outreach to PREVENT unwanted pregnancy and abortion
doesn't rely on banning abortion to prevent it.
So this serves as proof abortion CAN be prevented without banning it.
Opposing bans because of legal complications
IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING ABORTION.
I don't support abortion, but oppose biased laws
banning it that don't address the causes to PREVENT
abortion and to hold both men and women equally
responsible for PREVENTION in the first place.
What do you think of the idea of proposing
BANS on SEX where sex results in unwanted
pregnancy or abortion. If the woman doesn't want the
pregnancy, she has the option of filing abuse complaints
against the man. So if people really want 100% deterrence,
the punishment for such abuses should be so great as to
deter any such sex; or there should be 100% consensual AGREEMENTS
to follow abstinence policies against sex unless both partners consent to carry the
pregnancy to term. Where that isn't possible on a statewide or national level,
why not allow districts to form such agreements locally, and use that process
to screen out sex abusers to reduce rape, coercion and relationship abuse/fraud
that otherwise leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion.
Why not explore other angles on prevention
instead of arguing over "bans" after pregnancy
which doesn't represent all people and discriminates
by imposing one set of beliefs or creeds over others.
Still better options than being given no opportunity for life at all.There are stories of mothers who once they gave birth to the unwanted child became a good mother and raised the child. This a lot more fantasy than fact. In the good old days when women were forced to give birth to a child they did not want, they surrendered them for adoption, refuse to take them, left them on doorsteps, threw them in trash cans, or kept them as long as the government paid for them.OR genetically engineered fetuses.So it's like her property, right?Doesn't matter. Until the mother cuts it it loose, a fetus isn't a separate person, and it's none of your business. Claiming that it is, and having government intervene, is laying claim to the mother's uterus as state property. That is unacceptable and far more dangerous than the abortion problem.
Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?
She can do with it as she likes, right?
Exactly, yeah. That might be upsetting to those of you who believe the fetus is a fully formed person, waiting to emerge - but it's the only way it can really work. What you're proposing creates a nightmare scenario where government is in control of our inner bodily processes. No thanks.
Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?
If we actually ban all abortions, what happens to the resulting babies since the parent(s) don't want them? According to pro-lifers, there are over a million abortion in the US. There are only 87,000 adoptions in the US excluding step parent adoptions. That mean we would have potentially, 913,000 unwanted un-adopted babies. That is more than twice the number of kids now in foster care.
you ever considered that the mother take care of her child???
Don’t know. We’ll have to discover that when we get there.There are about 150,000 adoptions a year. If you disregard, step parent adoption, there only about 87,000. If pro-livers have their way, there will be an additional 913,000 unwanted children, over twice the number of children in foster care. Where do think homes for those kids are going come from and who is going to pay for it.There’s always adoption.I don't believe proponents of abortion are evil. Just misguided.The only disagreement I have with what you've written is ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED. A fine sentiment but an impossible goal since there is a fundamental conflict in people's values. I think pro-lifers honestly believe pro-choicers are evil and will never compromise their values on this issue.Dear alang1216
The REAL issues being missed aren't about the egg or fetus vs. mother at all.
A. Laws aren't addressing the MEN in the decisions to have sex
that LEAD to either unwanted pregnancy or abortion.
If we start addressing that, where both partners are EQUALLY
responsible BEFORE SEX AND PREGNANCY OCCUR
then we rewrite the whole equation instead of focusing
on just the "egg or fetus vs the adult mother"
Where is the FATHER or the MAN in all this?
That's one thing missing causing DISPARITY from the start.
B. The Constitutional part missed
Instead of focusing on
* rights of the mother or woman's due process
* rights of the unborn child
Where people WOULD be equal is respecting BELIEFS EQUALLY -- NOT creating situations
or passing laws that violate the BELIEFS of one person or group or another
So REGARDLESS if we are
* prochoice IN BELIEFS
and don't believe legislation against abortion are fair or practical, or we are
* prolife in BELIEFS
and don't believe any other rights or laws should disparage the right to life of the unborn
the CONSTITUTION would require
* NO SUCH BELIEFS either be Prohibited NOR Established where it compromises others
(ie with both prochoice and prolife beliefs, both are guaranteed protection of the laws
instead of violating one or the other by passing biased laws)
* No such rights should be DISPARAGED or compromised
but ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED
IN order to achieve that, clearly we cannot intervene AFTER pregnancy occurs because WE DON'T AGREE at that point.
The place we CAN agree is at the point we AVOID unwanted pregnancy to begin with.
So that's where we need to focus
in order to satisfy ALL beliefs and rights, and violate NONE of them.
Also ding don't forget there is a logical
and legal distinction between
* advocating ABORTION
* and "opposing laws banning or regulating
abortion ineffectively" (so as to impact women more than
men especially in cases where men coerce
women into sex and pregnancy but suffer
no legal responsibility that are pushed onto women)
Prolife outreach to PREVENT unwanted pregnancy and abortion
doesn't rely on banning abortion to prevent it.
So this serves as proof abortion CAN be prevented without banning it.
Opposing bans because of legal complications
IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING ABORTION.
I don't support abortion, but oppose biased laws
banning it that don't address the causes to PREVENT
abortion and to hold both men and women equally
responsible for PREVENTION in the first place.
What do you think of the idea of proposing
BANS on SEX where sex results in unwanted
pregnancy or abortion. If the woman doesn't want the
pregnancy, she has the option of filing abuse complaints
against the man. So if people really want 100% deterrence,
the punishment for such abuses should be so great as to
deter any such sex; or there should be 100% consensual AGREEMENTS
to follow abstinence policies against sex unless both partners consent to carry the
pregnancy to term. Where that isn't possible on a statewide or national level,
why not allow districts to form such agreements locally, and use that process
to screen out sex abusers to reduce rape, coercion and relationship abuse/fraud
that otherwise leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion.
Why not explore other angles on prevention
instead of arguing over "bans" after pregnancy
which doesn't represent all people and discriminates
by imposing one set of beliefs or creeds over others.
But you’d have to normalize that data for newborns to see if there might be a gap. There might not be a gap at all.
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,888
- 38,575
- 2,615
There are about 150,000 adoptions a year. If you disregard, step parent adoption, there only about 87,000. If pro-livers have their way, there will be an additional 913,000 unwanted children, over twice the number of children in foster care. Where do think homes for those kids are going come from and who is going to pay for it.There’s always adoption.I don't believe proponents of abortion are evil. Just misguided.The only disagreement I have with what you've written is ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED. A fine sentiment but an impossible goal since there is a fundamental conflict in people's values. I think pro-lifers honestly believe pro-choicers are evil and will never compromise their values on this issue.Dear alang1216
The REAL issues being missed aren't about the egg or fetus vs. mother at all.
A. Laws aren't addressing the MEN in the decisions to have sex
that LEAD to either unwanted pregnancy or abortion.
If we start addressing that, where both partners are EQUALLY
responsible BEFORE SEX AND PREGNANCY OCCUR
then we rewrite the whole equation instead of focusing
on just the "egg or fetus vs the adult mother"
Where is the FATHER or the MAN in all this?
That's one thing missing causing DISPARITY from the start.
B. The Constitutional part missed
Instead of focusing on
* rights of the mother or woman's due process
* rights of the unborn child
Where people WOULD be equal is respecting BELIEFS EQUALLY -- NOT creating situations
or passing laws that violate the BELIEFS of one person or group or another
So REGARDLESS if we are
* prochoice IN BELIEFS
and don't believe legislation against abortion are fair or practical, or we are
* prolife in BELIEFS
and don't believe any other rights or laws should disparage the right to life of the unborn
the CONSTITUTION would require
* NO SUCH BELIEFS either be Prohibited NOR Established where it compromises others
(ie with both prochoice and prolife beliefs, both are guaranteed protection of the laws
instead of violating one or the other by passing biased laws)
* No such rights should be DISPARAGED or compromised
but ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED
IN order to achieve that, clearly we cannot intervene AFTER pregnancy occurs because WE DON'T AGREE at that point.
The place we CAN agree is at the point we AVOID unwanted pregnancy to begin with.
So that's where we need to focus
in order to satisfy ALL beliefs and rights, and violate NONE of them.
Also ding don't forget there is a logical
and legal distinction between
* advocating ABORTION
* and "opposing laws banning or regulating
abortion ineffectively" (so as to impact women more than
men especially in cases where men coerce
women into sex and pregnancy but suffer
no legal responsibility that are pushed onto women)
Prolife outreach to PREVENT unwanted pregnancy and abortion
doesn't rely on banning abortion to prevent it.
So this serves as proof abortion CAN be prevented without banning it.
Opposing bans because of legal complications
IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING ABORTION.
I don't support abortion, but oppose biased laws
banning it that don't address the causes to PREVENT
abortion and to hold both men and women equally
responsible for PREVENTION in the first place.
What do you think of the idea of proposing
BANS on SEX where sex results in unwanted
pregnancy or abortion. If the woman doesn't want the
pregnancy, she has the option of filing abuse complaints
against the man. So if people really want 100% deterrence,
the punishment for such abuses should be so great as to
deter any such sex; or there should be 100% consensual AGREEMENTS
to follow abstinence policies against sex unless both partners consent to carry the
pregnancy to term. Where that isn't possible on a statewide or national level,
why not allow districts to form such agreements locally, and use that process
to screen out sex abusers to reduce rape, coercion and relationship abuse/fraud
that otherwise leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion.
Why not explore other angles on prevention
instead of arguing over "bans" after pregnancy
which doesn't represent all people and discriminates
by imposing one set of beliefs or creeds over others.
when the option is to murder the child those are acceptable numbers,,
in fact that is better for society than to become a country of baby killers,,
not to mention you have no proof that would be the case, or that the sluts of the country wont start keeping their legs closed if abortion is no longer an option
The angry bible thumpers don't realize that abortions will happen if they're illegal or not. As is stereotypical for angry bible thumpers, all responsibility for pregnancy is placed on the female yet the angry thumpers still insist that women should have no choice about childbirth.There are about 150,000 adoptions a year. If you disregard, step parent adoption, there only about 87,000. If pro-livers have their way, there will be an additional 913,000 unwanted children, over twice the number of children in foster care. Where do think homes for those kids are going come from and who is going to pay for it.There’s always adoption.I don't believe proponents of abortion are evil. Just misguided.The only disagreement I have with what you've written is ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED. A fine sentiment but an impossible goal since there is a fundamental conflict in people's values. I think pro-lifers honestly believe pro-choicers are evil and will never compromise their values on this issue.
Also ding don't forget there is a logical
and legal distinction between
* advocating ABORTION
* and "opposing laws banning or regulating
abortion ineffectively" (so as to impact women more than
men especially in cases where men coerce
women into sex and pregnancy but suffer
no legal responsibility that are pushed onto women)
Prolife outreach to PREVENT unwanted pregnancy and abortion
doesn't rely on banning abortion to prevent it.
So this serves as proof abortion CAN be prevented without banning it.
Opposing bans because of legal complications
IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING ABORTION.
I don't support abortion, but oppose biased laws
banning it that don't address the causes to PREVENT
abortion and to hold both men and women equally
responsible for PREVENTION in the first place.
What do you think of the idea of proposing
BANS on SEX where sex results in unwanted
pregnancy or abortion. If the woman doesn't want the
pregnancy, she has the option of filing abuse complaints
against the man. So if people really want 100% deterrence,
the punishment for such abuses should be so great as to
deter any such sex; or there should be 100% consensual AGREEMENTS
to follow abstinence policies against sex unless both partners consent to carry the
pregnancy to term. Where that isn't possible on a statewide or national level,
why not allow districts to form such agreements locally, and use that process
to screen out sex abusers to reduce rape, coercion and relationship abuse/fraud
that otherwise leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion.
Why not explore other angles on prevention
instead of arguing over "bans" after pregnancy
which doesn't represent all people and discriminates
by imposing one set of beliefs or creeds over others.
when the option is to murder the child those are acceptable numbers,,
in fact that is better for society than to become a country of baby killers,,
not to mention you have no proof that would be the case, or that the sluts of the country wont start keeping their legs closed if abortion is no longer an option
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 98,139
- 75,253
- 3,645
Because, fuck you, make choices for yourself. I know that's hard for someone who thinks he has divine authority to control women to swallow, but tough shit.Why not both?
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Why do so many of you hate God and people of faith?
I have in my 60 years on earth seen no evidence to support the notion of a god or gods. I have seen no evidence to preclude the notion of a god.
Hence, I am ambivalent.
As for "people of faith," it depends on the people. I don't have an issue with Christians. Jehovah's witnesses have no right to try and force their faith on me. Muslims are evil and engage in evil.
A faith that spawn evil is the enemy of good people.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
are you referring to the law that doesnt allow you to murder your child???I don't hate God since I don't believe he exists. I don't hate Zeus either for the same reason. I don't hate people of faith but I do hate what some people of faith have done and continue to do in the name of faith. Flying planes into buildings is an obvious example but enacting laws that affect me in the name of their faith is essentially the same thing.Why do so many of you hate God and people of faith?
Maybe you can answer:
- Why do people of faith hate people of other faiths?
- Why do people of faith hate people with no faith?
Science, in the form of ultrasound images and DNA has done more to dissuade people from killing the pre-born than religion ever did.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Why do so many of you hate God and people of faith?
I spent the first 27 years of my life playing the Good Christian game. I played it all the way. Hell, I was an officer of the church I belonged to. Then, on August 22, 2001 my eyes were opened. “The scales fell away from my eyes and I could see clearly” as Saul/Paul would put it. I finally understood the bullshit and lies of organized religion. It would take another three years to fully realize the extent of the fraud thst is organized religion, but in thst day I walked away from religion forever.
People who claim they at one time really believed almost unfailngly give a list of chores as proof.
I find that so interesting.
Dear SweetSue92 and Anathema
I came to an understanding of what Jesus, Christianity and the Bible mean
from a SECULAR humanist perspective I still have. I still think like a nontheist
but ADD the other world and language of Christian "Bible symbolism" to that
so it's like being bilingual but retaining both languages. I prefer my native tongue
so I see NOTHING wrong with people deciding they are secular/nontheist as their
preferred language and way of thinking and communicating.
A good friend of mine who was a Baptist preacher up to the age of 19
also decided he was more the path of the secular humanist; he kept all the
same message of FREE GRACE in life, and being able to FORGIVE so you
let go of the past and start every day with a new opportunity. And he always
asked "what can I do to help you" that everything should be about how do we
love one another and help others. If it isn't helping, if it isn't necessary (like preaching
about Jesus and God as a bunch of religious conditions on relations) then why waste
time going there. He worked alongside Christians and Christian groups on RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE to help people recovering from criminal problems including addictions, abuse
any manner of social or mental ills and didn't believe in judging people, just helping
RESTORE people's sanity and sense of humanity by teaching forgiveness so people
can work together.
It's the forgiveness factor that saves relations and people so we can work together.
I still think he and I benefit from "receiving Jesus" in order to have that greater
capacity for forgiveness that is divine on a collective spiritual level.
I find that we as human beings ALL RUN INTO areas or people or groups
WE SIMPLY CANNOT BRING OURSELVES TO FORGIVE and treat as ourselves.
There are people or groups we JUST CANNOT STAND and don't want anything
to do with them.
So that's where the "divine forgiveness" comes in that is beyond ourselves,
and it takes "other people" to forgive and work with THOSE PEOPLE or
THOSE GROUPS where we draw the line. We have our limits. We have
our biases because we don't live forever, we don't have unlimited time
or brain power or energy to work out and save every single relationship
or conflict we have with every single person of every single group.
We pick and choose who it's worth to us to forgive and work with.
And cut off people who will WASTE our time and energy.
So that's why Christians pray to God through Jesus to take care of
those sins we don't WANT to forgive and work through. By praying
for help to forgive, it keeps all that negative BURDEN off the mind
instead of holding on to those obstructive and destructive thoughts and energy.
People who don't forgive but hold on to these NEGATIVE thought
patterns and energy, end up PROJECTING those onto other people
so that causes more suffering instead of helping.
So even my friend who identified ATHEIST was still teaching the
same message he found universal in life: that forgiving and
receiving FREE GRACE saves you from this suffering or insanity
"that puts people through hell." He still found this to be true
even though he gave up using "Jesus God and the Bible" to teach it.
He had plenty of people he helped by teaching it through secular
explanation of why forgiveness is necessary, even for your own sanity sake.
I will always love that about him, and believe God made him an
Atheist for a reason, so he could explain and share with thousands of
people in prison and worldwide who understand this better
USING SECULAR language and explanation. People like him
who just don't get it or relate to the Christian symbolism and why
that's necessary, when the meaning is universal and just as easy
if not easier to explain using plain secular terms that apply to real life.
The option to give birth should always lie with the women, not the state. Today women give birth to children because they want to bring new life into the world or want a baby to love, cherish, and to raise. Turning half million or more abortions into unwanted children is not a good option for society, the family, nor the child.Still better options than being given no opportunity for life at all.There are stories of mothers who once they gave birth to the unwanted child became a good mother and raised the child. This a lot more fantasy than fact. In the good old days when women were forced to give birth to a child they did not want, they surrendered them for adoption, refuse to take them, left them on doorsteps, threw them in trash cans, or kept them as long as the government paid for them.OR genetically engineered fetuses.So it's like her property, right?
She can do with it as she likes, right?
Exactly, yeah. That might be upsetting to those of you who believe the fetus is a fully formed person, waiting to emerge - but it's the only way it can really work. What you're proposing creates a nightmare scenario where government is in control of our inner bodily processes. No thanks.
Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?
If we actually ban all abortions, what happens to the resulting babies since the parent(s) don't want them? According to pro-lifers, there are over a million abortion in the US. There are only 87,000 adoptions in the US excluding step parent adoptions. That mean we would have potentially, 913,000 unwanted un-adopted babies. That is more than twice the number of kids now in foster care.
you ever considered that the mother take care of her child???
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,888
- 38,575
- 2,615
its a better option than to be a nation of baby killers,,The option to give birth should always lie with the women, not the state. Today women give birth to children because they want to bring new life into the world or want a baby to love, cherish, and to raise. Turning half million or more abortions into unwanted children is not a good option for society, the family, nor the child.Still better options than being given no opportunity for life at all.There are stories of mothers who once they gave birth to the unwanted child became a good mother and raised the child. This a lot more fantasy than fact. In the good old days when women were forced to give birth to a child they did not want, they surrendered them for adoption, refuse to take them, left them on doorsteps, threw them in trash cans, or kept them as long as the government paid for them.OR genetically engineered fetuses.Exactly, yeah. That might be upsetting to those of you who believe the fetus is a fully formed person, waiting to emerge - but it's the only way it can really work. What you're proposing creates a nightmare scenario where government is in control of our inner bodily processes. No thanks.
Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?
If we actually ban all abortions, what happens to the resulting babies since the parent(s) don't want them? According to pro-lifers, there are over a million abortion in the US. There are only 87,000 adoptions in the US excluding step parent adoptions. That mean we would have potentially, 913,000 unwanted un-adopted babies. That is more than twice the number of kids now in foster care.
you ever considered that the mother take care of her child???
if a women doesnt want a child she can of course keep her legs closed or try one of several options of birth control,,,
murder is never an option,,,
Similar threads
- Replies
- 285
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 174
- Views
- 881
- Replies
- 210
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 91
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 26
- Replies
- 151
- Views
- 957
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8555
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-