Does prayer work?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
thats fine, i respect your opinion on this, as long as you dont try and force it on others. i personally have conflicting feelings on the subject, its a complex subject and would take me a very long time to explain on here what i think and would probably bore the crap out of anybody reading. however when talking about cells i couldnt disagree with you m ...[text shortened]... adoption and change the social climate of the country before we can change the laws of abortion.

i was speaking to a women last week, a dinner lady when i was waiting to get my hair
cut, she said that she was childless and at the time was deemed too old to adopt a
child, that was in the nineties I think,


🙄

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i was speaking to a women last week, a dinner lady when i was waiting to get my hair
cut, she said that she was childless and at the time was deemed too old to adopt a
child, that was in the nineties I think,


🙄

dude, where do you get your hair-cut, did you get a blue-rinse?


i could bang on about the problems with the care system, adoption, fostering and social services all day. you cannot expect people to not have abortions until the support is there to help them deal with carrying a baby in what can be very difficult social environments. you may argue its what god wants, but even if its at the expense of making things worse?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
dude, where do you get your hair-cut, did you get a blue-rinse?


i could bang on about the problems with the care system, adoption, fostering and social services all day. you cannot expect people to not have abortions until the support is there to help them deal with carrying a baby in what can be very difficult social environments. you may argue its what god wants, but even if its at the expense of making things worse?

I get my hair cut at Sandras, £4.50 for a bowl cut and out the door. 😛

There is never an easy time to have children, but the vast majority of abortions are
conducted because of social convenience, that is morally wrong and unjustifiable.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I get my hair cut at Sandras, £4.50 for a bowl cut and out the door. 😛

There is never an easy time to have children, but the vast majority of abortions are
conducted because of social convenience, that is morally wrong and unjustifiable.

'social convenience' is cheap words robbie. what are you really saying? is it a red-top headline style dig at the fictional promiscuous society??? or are you saying the girls whos social circumstances are like hell on earth are taking the easy option? what exactly is social convenience?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I get my hair cut at Sandras, £4.50 for a bowl cut and out the door. 😛

There is never an easy time to have children, but the vast majority of abortions are
conducted because of social convenience, that is morally wrong and unjustifiable.

£4.50!!!!!! i hope you tip you tight bstrd!!!!!



edit: sorry,i keep forgetting you are scottish.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
a bunch of cells? oh dear oh dear, so every abortion takes place immediately after
conception, this has to be the biggest and most epic fail of all time failures. Your
definition of what constitutes a life is meaningless, You have no more recourse to the
term morality than a serial axe murderer.

For reference because you are obviously incapable of going back and reading posts properly...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are taking the life of an innocent, it is therefore premeditated murder. Here again is
the voidreasons criteria,

state sanctioned killing of any kind is murder.
any act of a conscious decision to kill is murder.

that pretty much sums up abortion.

[quote]Originally posted by googlefudge
'killing' a bunch of cells is not murder.

And I don't buy Void's criteria and I suspect (hope) that with some thought he doesn't either.
However that's still to be determined and irrelevant to the fact that a bunch of cells is not a person.

A person has a mind, which requires a functioning brain, which no foetus has.

Unless and until there is a mind involved it's just a sack of meat and you can't murder a sack of meat.

[/quote]

...this has to be the biggest and most epic fail of all time failures.

No you just walked into my trap. (fish... barrel...) You really must try harder not to do this.

[Also you have a reading comprehension fail.

... Your definition of what constitutes a life is meaningless,...

At no point did I talk about or give any definition of 'life'. I talked about what constitutes a PERSON.
Not what constitutes life.
I kill billions of bacteria daily... only an idiot would term that murder.
To qualify as murder you have to kill a person... Simply being alive does not count.
Otherwise you would be committing murder every time you did some weeding in the garden.

So as usual it's you who has the epic fail... Really do try harder.
It's embarrassingly easy to destroy your arguments.]

Of course I don't think every abortion happens immediately after conception.

However you just admitted that an embryo IS a bunch of cells.

a bunch of cells? oh dear oh dear, so every abortion takes place immediately after
conception,...

So at some point it is just a bunch of cells and not a person with a mind.

Thankyou for that.

We can agree that at some point (with quite a lot of luck given the vast majority of conceptions
that end in failure) that if the pregnancy is allowed to run it's course and the child is born then
at some point it is a person that you are not allowed to kill.

The question is when that point is... Which is not a question of IF abortion but of WHEN abortion.
When you can do it not if. (although for reasons outlined below I would permit pretty much all abortion
on the grounds of bodily autonomy, but person-hood/"abortion is murder" arguments are just stupid when
talking about something that has no brain let alone a functioning one.)

You have no more recourse to the term morality than a serial axe murderer.

Well given that I think you are an amoral hypocritical ignorant lying scum bag this sentiment really
doesn't bother me.

I hope that my positions piss-of those who think like you do, It helps let me know I am doing something right.


For a great demonstration of what my actual position on abortion is. This debate pretty much covers it.
(Matt's side not Kristine's) Matt goes first, you can ignore the terrible counter arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PCg8Kb2qpg0

A woman has bodily autonomy, even if an embryo were a person (stupid idea) the woman still has no requirement
to act as life support for it until it can survive on it's own.

WARNING: Kristine uses graphic images at one point in her talk which are revolting and potentially upsetting if not
in any way compelling. For a summery of the bad arguments/lies she uses without the images follow this link.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/10/21/bad-argument-3-science-says-what/

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
life is life and i make no distinction between the right to life and those who wilfully take
it, either through murder or abortion. 'A bunch of cells', is typical of the type of
desensitising rhetoric that those who advocate state sanctioned killing of innocents like
to use, it helps them to sanitise the killing.

Stupid argument... But then from you I expect nothing else.

A bacteria is 'life'... So are plants... Sheep, cows, Fish, Slime mould, Tumors...

Is killing any/all of those murder?

An Embryo IS (at the beginning) a bunch of cells.

It's literally and indisputably true.

Even when it gets a bit bigger and starts to vaguely have the same shape as a person
it has no nervous system let alone a mind and is STILL just a bunch of dumb cells.

This is also scientifically and factually indisputable.

'Killing' a bunch of cells is neither murder nor morally objectionable.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Through inherited sin, from Adam. Sin essentially means a kind of imperfection.

And sin was created by your god... (in your fictional fairy story)

In fact everything was created by your god, the rules, the punishments, the world... everything.

Thus you can't claim that ANYTHING does not buck stop with your god because according to you,
your god created EVERYTHING.

Your god created a tree of knowledge in his garden of Eden, created Lucifer, and created Adam and Eve.

Your god created the rule about not eating from the tree, and the punishment.

And your god must have been able to foresee that the two people would eventually inevitably been seduced
by Lucifer to eat from the tree given your gods knowledge of the natures of the three parties and the
infinite time (no death in Eden right) in which for it to play out so your god must have known and planned in
advance for this to happen. (otherwise your god is not worthy of the title, because it's bleedin obvious to
me let alone an omnipotent super-being)

So it was and must have been INTENDED by your god.

And thus your gods fault.

At least it would be if your religion was actually true.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I get my hair cut at Sandras, £4.50 for a bowl cut and out the door. 😛

There is never an easy time to have children, but the vast majority of abortions are
conducted because of social convenience, that is morally wrong and unjustifiable.

Wrong. See my other posts.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
mr fudge specifically mentioned a 'bunch of cells'. do you think aborting a bunch of cells is the same as state sanctioned murder?

Technically speaking googlefudge (when it is my username) is one word, so shouldn't that be Mr googlefudge?

Or possibly Mr google (or just Mr G? if your going for the bond villain turn) if you're going to contract it...

Mr fudge just sounds weird...

Although frankly sticking Mr in front of most user names sounds weird.... Anachronistic even...

Like you are harking back to the days of formally written letters that are posted with stamp rather than
electronic communications in an internet forum.

Anyhow, good on the point question.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so abortion is essentially murder, thank you for clearing that up.

that is my view. the right to do so however, belongs fully to the host and she cannot be charged with a crime since an unborn human has no rights. all of the unborn human's rights belong to the host.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Murder? Ummm, no.

Most people with even a shred of reading comprehension can figure out that one of the main messages of the Bible is that sin is a bad thing, and it will result in punishment, unless you accept the gift of redemption and eternal life through Christ Jesus.

So don't consider it murder, any more than people on death row are being murder ...[text shortened]... lution, then you accept the punishment. So take care of the problem or quit crying about it.

There is a difference between:
Being able to read the bible (or just the ten commandments) and being able to tell that the
bible thinks that sin is bad thing.

And...

Caring that the bible says that sin is a bad thing, or agreeing that sin is bad.


We all know that Christianity (well pretty much all theistic religions really) think that sin is bad.
And if we didn't there are all these believers who do pretty much nothing but go on and on about
how bad sin is.

However we don't care/disagree with that. Which is entirely not the same as not understanding it.

First your god and religion is fictional, which is the main source of don't care.

However even if it wasn't, 'Sin' has little to nothing to do with morality.

Sin is simply breaking gods laws/commandments/generally pissing god off.

There are things that are considered sins that are also coincidentally immoral.
But there are things that are considered sins that are not immoral and others that are just amoral.

Following all 600+ commandments of the bible is not possible and would be highly immoral.
Heck just following the top ten would be pretty stupid. Assuming you guys can get together and agree what
they are because it's not clear as there is more than one version.

The commandments are not morals they are laws.

And I/we don't recognize gods authority to issue laws.

And while the proposed punishment (eternal roasting) sounds pretty terrible so does your supposed 'gift'.

You have a stick but no carrot.

Because heaven sounds worse, There is no way in hell I am prepared to spend eternity kissing gods arse simply to
avoid spending an eternity burning in hell.

So given that either way is hell Ill go with keeping my integrity and give god the finger...


Or I would if any of this were real, which it has been pretty conclusively proven not to be (by quantum physics if nothing else)




Arbitrarily killing/torturing people for not following laws that they have no say in and had no reasonable way of knowing were being
enforced and are not even moral is in itself deeply immoral and frankly evil.

Which is why your god is as described evil and immoral.

And also a murderer.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
that is my view. the right to do so however, belongs fully to the host and she cannot be charged with a crime since an unborn human has no rights. all of the unborn human's rights belong to the host.

Well I think you are torturing the word 'murder' and making it mean stuff that nobody else
(outside maybe your circle and some fundies) uses it for.

As far as I am concerned a 'Murder' must have an immoral component.

And as I have said, killing a bunch of cells with no brain is not immoral.

It might be a potential person but that still means it's not an actual person yet.


However as you say the rights to the body DO belong to the woman (host) and she has the right
to exercise that right regardless of who or what that effects. Even if you gave the foetus full legal
rights this still would be the case.

And it's not that she can't be charged with a crime, it's that no crime has taken place.

I don't agree with (or frankly respect as it's wrong) your view.

But I do respect that you are not advocating/trying to force it on anyone else.

(and no I am not trying to force my view on anyone else as any woman who disagrees is free to go
through with the pregnancy. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion)

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well I think you are torturing the word 'murder' and making it mean stuff that nobody else
(outside maybe your circle and some fundies) uses it for.

As far as I am concerned a 'Murder' must have an immoral component.

And as I have said, killing a bunch of cells with no brain is not immoral.

It might be a potential person but that still means i sagrees is free to go
through with the pregnancy. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion)

Just curious, at what point do you consider an unborn baby to be a life and when would it be considered murder? I probably know your answer but I'm still curious...

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well I think you are torturing the word 'murder' and making it mean stuff that nobody else
(outside maybe your circle and some fundies) uses it for.

As far as I am concerned a 'Murder' must have an immoral component.

morality and moral components are highly subjective. you would reduce murder to an opinion. my definition is more concrete and not subject to interpretation.

i wasn't very elaborate in my reply to robbie since frankly, it would be wasted on him. i will expand on my view to you however, to clarify some points and what exactly it is that i consider murder.

a conscious decision to kill [a human being endowed with rights] = murder. very simple. no grey spots. (i had to add the caveat for clarity so people won't think i'm talking about cows and carrots).

as far as murder to an unborn/developing human is concerned, the mother has all the rights (her own and that of the developing human), ergo if someone (other than the mother) consciously causes the abortion/death of the developing human, the mother has the right to press charges of murder.

And as I have said, killing a bunch of cells with no brain is not immoral.

It might be a potential person but that still means it's not an actual person yet.

okay. i would say that it is irrelevant since you're invoking a subjective moral component. and at some point, it won't be just a bunch of cells. then you're faced with the difficult problem of determining exactly when that happens and the legal quagmire that will ensue concerning what to do if an abortion takes place after the arbitrarily decided point.

there is no such chaos and interpretations involved when the developing human is given rights after their birth. now we have a specific event that will be the same for every human being.

However as you say the rights to the body DO belong to the woman (host) and she has the right
to exercise that right regardless of who or what that effects. Even if you gave the foetus full legal
rights this still would be the case.

And it's not that she can't be charged with a crime, it's that no crime has taken place.

indeed, but i hope you will agree that a crime can take place if someone who does not have the rights causes the developing human to die... let's say for example, someone violently assaults the pregnant woman. she survives, but the pregnancy is aborted and the developing human dies.

I don't agree with (or frankly respect as it's wrong) your view.

But I do respect that you are not advocating/trying to force it on anyone else.

(and no I am not trying to force my view on anyone else as any woman who disagrees is free to go
through with the pregnancy. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion)

yes, i'm just sharing my view. i wouldn't force my views on anyone but i will try to get others to see things my way.

though i have no respect for women who abort in cases where the pregnancy was due to their own irresponsibility, i will defend their right to do so. as it stands, i have even less respect for people (ie republicans) who try to take away women's reproductive rights.