It is certainly true that those who support abortion are monsters...

[Erinwltr]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

limbo of the fathers is where the souls of the righteous went before Christ lived and died, in His death he opened Heaven's gates for the just who had gone before Him.

Prove that bunch of nonsense.

 

[sakinago]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

Or he walked away “mad as hell” because that’s a dumb false equivalency. Who actually ever claims to see God? People may believe god intervenes in unseen ways, but the percentage of religious people who claim to see god has to be in the .0001 percentile, and those people aren’t usually considered to be playing with a full deck. Christians believe in free will, while atheist do not (not the prominent ones who can make intelligent arguments at least). It would kind of throw a wrench in the whole free will thing if we could actually see or prove god. It doesn’t require a whole lotta faith to count on the sun rising every morning.

On the other hand, people claim to see ghosts all the time. Using logical fallacies to “disprove” god isn’t something to be proud of bub.

 

[Montrovant]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

Or he walked away “mad as hell” because that’s a dumb false equivalency. Who actually ever claims to see God? People may believe god intervenes in unseen ways, but the percentage of religious people who claim to see god has to be in the .0001 percentile, and those people aren’t usually considered to be playing with a full deck. Christians believe in free will, while atheist do not (not the prominent ones who can make intelligent arguments at least). It would kind of throw a wrench in the whole free will thing if we could actually see or prove god. It doesn’t require a whole lotta faith to count on the sun rising every morning.

On the other hand, people claim to see ghosts all the time. Using logical fallacies to “disprove” god isn’t something to be proud of bub.

Who are the prominent atheists who do not believe in free will? Are they determinists?

How would proof of god remove free will? A person would still have the freedom to choose to follow or not god's laws, wouldn't they? Free will doesn't only exist in regards to things that one has no proof for. Free will and faith are not the same thing.

 

[sakinago]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

Or he walked away “mad as hell” because that’s a dumb false equivalency. Who actually ever claims to see God? People may believe god intervenes in unseen ways, but the percentage of religious people who claim to see god has to be in the .0001 percentile, and those people aren’t usually considered to be playing with a full deck. Christians believe in free will, while atheist do not (not the prominent ones who can make intelligent arguments at least). It would kind of throw a wrench in the whole free will thing if we could actually see or prove god. It doesn’t require a whole lotta faith to count on the sun rising every morning.

On the other hand, people claim to see ghosts all the time. Using logical fallacies to “disprove” god isn’t something to be proud of bub.

Who are the prominent atheists who do not believe in free will? Are they determinists?

How would proof of god remove free will? A person would still have the freedom to choose to follow or not god's laws, wouldn't they? Free will doesn't only exist in regards to things that one has no proof for. Free will and faith are not the same thing.

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris most notably, and pretty much any of the prominent atheist who promote atheism, spend a good bit of their focus on atheism, and actually debate these issues. Basically the ones who make the best arguments. It’s kind of determinism, but that’s not the best descriptor. It’s more like all of your actions come from a recipe made up of genetics, neurons firing in your brain, communicative chemicals in your brain, learned behaviors, and evolutionary adaptations. There’s plenty of other atheist out there who don’t spend as much time thinking about these issues who believe in free will, but I wouldn’t call them the prominent ones, even if they are famous, it’s for something outside of atheism.

And knowing god exists effectively would eliminate free will. If you were really really stupid, hardheaded, and narcissistic maybe you knowingly reject “gods commands”...but that would take one assuming they know better than the all powerful, all knowing, all seeing thing that created the universe that they only comprehend an extremely small fractional percentage of. This would be like your average person saying that they’re a better basketball player than Lebron, and then challenging Lebron to a game. Except times a couple million or billion, idk, like that but to a way worse extent. You’d have to be delusional to do so.

 

[jc456]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

Or he walked away “mad as hell” because that’s a dumb false equivalency. Who actually ever claims to see God? People may believe god intervenes in unseen ways, but the percentage of religious people who claim to see god has to be in the .0001 percentile, and those people aren’t usually considered to be playing with a full deck. Christians believe in free will, while atheist do not (not the prominent ones who can make intelligent arguments at least). It would kind of throw a wrench in the whole free will thing if we could actually see or prove god. It doesn’t require a whole lotta faith to count on the sun rising every morning.

On the other hand, people claim to see ghosts all the time. Using logical fallacies to “disprove” god isn’t something to be proud of bub.

Who are the prominent atheists who do not believe in free will? Are they determinists?

How would proof of god remove free will? A person would still have the freedom to choose to follow or not god's laws, wouldn't they? Free will doesn't only exist in regards to things that one has no proof for. Free will and faith are not the same thing.

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris most notably, and pretty much any of the prominent atheist who promote atheism, spend a good bit of their focus on atheism, and actually debate these issues. Basically the ones who make the best arguments. It’s kind of determinism, but that’s not the best descriptor. It’s more like all of your actions come from a recipe made up of genetics, neurons firing in your brain, communicative chemicals in your brain, learned behaviors, and evolutionary adaptations. There’s plenty of other atheist out there who don’t spend as much time thinking about these issues who believe in free will, but I wouldn’t call them the prominent ones, even if they are famous, it’s for something outside of atheism.

And knowing god exists effectively would eliminate free will. If you were really really stupid, hardheaded, and narcissistic maybe you knowingly reject “gods commands”...but that would take one assuming they know better than the all powerful, all knowing, all seeing thing that created the universe that they only comprehend an extremely small fractional percentage of. This would be like your average person saying that they’re a better basketball player than Lebron, and then challenging Lebron to a game. Except times a couple million or billion, idk, like that but to a way worse extent. You’d have to be delusional to do so.

So do these atheists believe in the 10 commandments?

 

[sakinago]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

Or he walked away “mad as hell” because that’s a dumb false equivalency. Who actually ever claims to see God? People may believe god intervenes in unseen ways, but the percentage of religious people who claim to see god has to be in the .0001 percentile, and those people aren’t usually considered to be playing with a full deck. Christians believe in free will, while atheist do not (not the prominent ones who can make intelligent arguments at least). It would kind of throw a wrench in the whole free will thing if we could actually see or prove god. It doesn’t require a whole lotta faith to count on the sun rising every morning.

On the other hand, people claim to see ghosts all the time. Using logical fallacies to “disprove” god isn’t something to be proud of bub.

Who are the prominent atheists who do not believe in free will? Are they determinists?

How would proof of god remove free will? A person would still have the freedom to choose to follow or not god's laws, wouldn't they? Free will doesn't only exist in regards to things that one has no proof for. Free will and faith are not the same thing.

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris most notably, and pretty much any of the prominent atheist who promote atheism, spend a good bit of their focus on atheism, and actually debate these issues. Basically the ones who make the best arguments. It’s kind of determinism, but that’s not the best descriptor. It’s more like all of your actions come from a recipe made up of genetics, neurons firing in your brain, communicative chemicals in your brain, learned behaviors, and evolutionary adaptations. There’s plenty of other atheist out there who don’t spend as much time thinking about these issues who believe in free will, but I wouldn’t call them the prominent ones, even if they are famous, it’s for something outside of atheism.

And knowing god exists effectively would eliminate free will. If you were really really stupid, hardheaded, and narcissistic maybe you knowingly reject “gods commands”...but that would take one assuming they know better than the all powerful, all knowing, all seeing thing that created the universe that they only comprehend an extremely small fractional percentage of. This would be like your average person saying that they’re a better basketball player than Lebron, and then challenging Lebron to a game. Except times a couple million or billion, idk, like that but to a way worse extent. You’d have to be delusional to do so.

So do these atheists believe in the 10 commandments?

They probably agree with some of them, depends on what you mean by believe. I don’t understand the purpose of this question.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is a double homicide when a pg woman is killed, because she apparently has not had an abortion and maybe didn't want one, that is why. Its a well know fact you GOP are pro birth , not pro life.

It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?

Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.

The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.

Because she did not want an abortion and probably would of carried to term. Murder is killing the women and so the fetus has no chance of becoming a viable infant.

What may or may not have happened in the future doesn't matter, though. If a fetus, before a certain stage of development, is not a person, is in fact an extension of the mother's body, how can the fetus be murdered?

People it is simple, there is but one question, is a fetus alive?

All kinds of things are alive without us granting them the sort of protection and value we do with people.

Yes, but only one kind of thing is alive and a member of the human race.

And there are all kinds of things that are alive and not human which are given far more respect and protection than human fetuses, by the exact same people who want to treat fetuses like infected tonsils.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Empowering women to make their own choices about abortion is absolutely the ethical and moral thing to do.

Show of hands, everyone who looks to Fort for moral guidance and authority. Hands! Anyone?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

Why is a double homicide when a pg woman is killed, because she apparently has not had an abortion and maybe didn't want one, that is why. Its a well know fact you GOP are pro birth , not pro life.

It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?

Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.

The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.

Because she did not want an abortion and probably would of carried to term. Murder is killing the women and so the fetus has no chance of becoming a viable infant.

Your suppositions have no basis in reality. Women don’t carry a child for six or seven months and then “change their minds” about carrying it to term. It is pointless to base responses on idiot scenarios that have no basis in reality.

You attribute a level of casualness and inhumanity to these decisions that has no basis in reality, while ignoring the very real issues of poverty and lack of worker protections that drive the abortion rate in the US.

You ignore the poverty and the lack of health care or job protections for low income workers and instead paint these women as selfish who have no morals.

You go with these ridiculous conservative anti-abortion talking points that don’t address any of the real issues driving the reasons for abortions.

oh my god, just answer the question. I pretty much cited the reasons you gave about your friend getting her abortion. And so far your only answer has been, “well that’ll never happen.” Uh, yes that absolutely could happen. And stop avoiding the question. Trump is president, any fucking thing can happen at this point.

No it absolutely couldn’t. And you can’t find a single example where it did. No doctor would perform such a procedure and no woman would ask for an abortion at such a late date. These are just campfire tales to rile up stupid conservatives against abortion.

Even the late term babies born without brains are delivered normally so that their organs can be harvested for transplants. So that the parents have at comfort of knowing that other families will have a happy ending from their loss.

But not one of you anti-abortion types have given a single reason why women should be stripped of their rights to make decisions about whether or not to have a baby.

You are absolutely smoking crack. No, it's not common for women to wait that long to get an abortion, but it does happen. About 1% of all abortions in the US every year are third-trimester. Some of the reasons given are the possibility that the child has a birth defect, or a life change such as the relationship with her partner ending. Even Planned Parenthood doesn't try to pretend it never happens.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5113/9611/5527/Abortion_After_first_trimester.pdf

And no, third-trimester abortions typically are not "delivered normally". The standard procedure is actually to euthanize the baby in utero, then induce labor so that the child is delivered stillborn.

Finally, PRO-LIFERS have given you the reasons why this so-called right should never have been invented in the first place. The fact that you refuse to listen and hear them because you don't want to deal with it and would prefer to live in this warm, fuzzy fantasy world you've made for yourself is not on us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But not one of you anti-abortion types have given a single reason why women should be stripped of their rights to make decisions about whether or not to have a baby.

Because they know their argument rests on religion, and they know it is not a compelling argument in a secular society to take away the rights of others, "Because my favorite god says so, just ask him!"

So, instead, we get treated to this dog and pony show.

Funny, then, how the only people who ever bring up religion in these debates are the pro-aborts, attempting to deflect from having to respond to the arguments ACTUALLY being made.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nobody “supports” abortion. Some do support allowing the woman to make the decision the law allows her to make. We understand that law is fact and does not fit well with emotion driven feelings

Deflection. And disingenuous in the extreme.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I want to know where a pregnant woman was killed and the perp wasn’t charged for the baby as well!

Which, of course, is completely consistent with pro-choice views.

So? I say fk you to anyone ok with killing a baby

Good for you. While I am personally against getting an abortion, I say it is the woman's choice.

Why would you be "personally against getting an abortion" if there's nothing wrong with it? And if there's something wrong with it, such that you are "personally against" it, why would you be okay with it otherwise?

This is literally the most ignorant, self-contradictory POS argument ever conceived of by mankind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nobody “supports” abortion. Some do support allowing the woman to make the decision the law allows her to make. We understand that law is fact and does not fit well with emotion driven feelings

It’s murder. The baby is alive so it’s murder.

If it were murder then it would not be legal. Once again, facts are troubling to those driven by emotion

You have the cart before the horse, there, Chuckles. Murder doesn't make it illegal; illegality makes it murder. Murder is a term specifically meaning "the illegal taking of a human life". This is why I never personally describe abortion as murder, and get annoyed at people who do. Sloppy communication does no one any good.

 

[Penelope]

Why is a double homicide when a pg woman is killed, because she apparently has not had an abortion and maybe didn't want one, that is why. Its a well know fact you GOP are pro birth , not pro life.

It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?

Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.

The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.

Because she did not want an abortion and probably would of carried to term. Murder is killing the women and so the fetus has no chance of becoming a viable infant.

Your suppositions have no basis in reality. Women don’t carry a child for six or seven months and then “change their minds” about carrying it to term. It is pointless to base responses on idiot scenarios that have no basis in reality.

You attribute a level of casualness and inhumanity to these decisions that has no basis in reality, while ignoring the very real issues of poverty and lack of worker protections that drive the abortion rate in the US.

You ignore the poverty and the lack of health care or job protections for low income workers and instead paint these women as selfish who have no morals.

You go with these ridiculous conservative anti-abortion talking points that don’t address any of the real issues driving the reasons for abortions.

oh my god, just answer the question. I pretty much cited the reasons you gave about your friend getting her abortion. And so far your only answer has been, “well that’ll never happen.” Uh, yes that absolutely could happen. And stop avoiding the question. Trump is president, any fucking thing can happen at this point.

No it absolutely couldn’t. And you can’t find a single example where it did. No doctor would perform such a procedure and no woman would ask for an abortion at such a late date. These are just campfire tales to rile up stupid conservatives against abortion.

Even the late term babies born without brains are delivered normally so that their organs can be harvested for transplants. So that the parents have at comfort of knowing that other families will have a happy ending from their loss.

But not one of you anti-abortion types have given a single reason why women should be stripped of their rights to make decisions about whether or not to have a baby.

You are absolutely smoking crack. No, it's not common for women to wait that long to get an abortion, but it does happen. About 1% of all abortions in the US every year are third-trimester. Some of the reasons given are the possibility that the child has a birth defect, or a life change such as the relationship with her partner ending. Even Planned Parenthood doesn't try to pretend it never happens.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5113/9611/5527/Abortion_After_first_trimester.pdf

And no, third-trimester abortions typically are not "delivered normally". The standard procedure is actually to euthanize the baby in utero, then induce labor so that the child is delivered stillborn.

Finally, PRO-LIFERS have given you the reasons why this so-called right should never have been invented in the first place. The fact that you refuse to listen and hear them because you don't want to deal with it and would prefer to live in this warm, fuzzy fantasy world you've made for yourself is not on us.

Its against the law in the US and no not 1% wait till the end of pg to abort. Give us a link on that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I want to know where a pregnant woman was killed and the perp wasn’t charged for the baby as well!

Which, of course, is completely consistent with pro-choice views.

So? I say fk you to anyone ok with killing a baby

Nobody is OK with killing a baby. A fetus is not a baby.

Nobody is OK with killing a baby. That is why you pretend a fetus is not a baby, even if it means sounding like you stopped learning science in 1960 or so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, raise your hands: Who here has been to a funeral for a miscarriage?

Whoever just raised their hand is LYING.

We know there is a difference between a fetus and a baby, inherently.

Okay, raise your hands, everyone who thinks Fort is an arrogant pissant who thinks his shockingly narrow experience of the world constitutes the entire universe and all of human history, and he should be bitch-slapped until his eyes switch sockets.



WE - meaning the people with functioning brains and a scientific education that includes medical advancements after the first half of the 20th century - know that there are two differences between a fetus and a newborn, and neither of them magically makes a fetus any less the living human organism that he is: a newborn is older, and he's located outside the uterus.

I have no idea what you and your imaginary friend "know".

 

[sakinago]

It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?

Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.

The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.

Because she did not want an abortion and probably would of carried to term. Murder is killing the women and so the fetus has no chance of becoming a viable infant.

Your suppositions have no basis in reality. Women don’t carry a child for six or seven months and then “change their minds” about carrying it to term. It is pointless to base responses on idiot scenarios that have no basis in reality.

You attribute a level of casualness and inhumanity to these decisions that has no basis in reality, while ignoring the very real issues of poverty and lack of worker protections that drive the abortion rate in the US.

You ignore the poverty and the lack of health care or job protections for low income workers and instead paint these women as selfish who have no morals.

You go with these ridiculous conservative anti-abortion talking points that don’t address any of the real issues driving the reasons for abortions.

oh my god, just answer the question. I pretty much cited the reasons you gave about your friend getting her abortion. And so far your only answer has been, “well that’ll never happen.” Uh, yes that absolutely could happen. And stop avoiding the question. Trump is president, any fucking thing can happen at this point.

No it absolutely couldn’t. And you can’t find a single example where it did. No doctor would perform such a procedure and no woman would ask for an abortion at such a late date. These are just campfire tales to rile up stupid conservatives against abortion.

Even the late term babies born without brains are delivered normally so that their organs can be harvested for transplants. So that the parents have at comfort of knowing that other families will have a happy ending from their loss.

But not one of you anti-abortion types have given a single reason why women should be stripped of their rights to make decisions about whether or not to have a baby.

You are absolutely smoking crack. No, it's not common for women to wait that long to get an abortion, but it does happen. About 1% of all abortions in the US every year are third-trimester. Some of the reasons given are the possibility that the child has a birth defect, or a life change such as the relationship with her partner ending. Even Planned Parenthood doesn't try to pretend it never happens.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5113/9611/5527/Abortion_After_first_trimester.pdf

And no, third-trimester abortions typically are not "delivered normally". The standard procedure is actually to euthanize the baby in utero, then induce labor so that the child is delivered stillborn.

Finally, PRO-LIFERS have given you the reasons why this so-called right should never have been invented in the first place. The fact that you refuse to listen and hear them because you don't want to deal with it and would prefer to live in this warm, fuzzy fantasy world you've made for yourself is not on us.

Its against the law in the US and no not 1% wait till the end of pg to abort. Give us a link on that.

No it isn’t illegal, in Oregon there are ZERO restrictions on abortion. That means you could literally abort before delivery just because you feel like it. New Mexico is similar, same with DC, and I think Vermont too. Y’all should be all for that though, because right to privacy, right?

 

[Penelope]

Because she did not want an abortion and probably would of carried to term. Murder is killing the women and so the fetus has no chance of becoming a viable infant.

Your suppositions have no basis in reality. Women don’t carry a child for six or seven months and then “change their minds” about carrying it to term. It is pointless to base responses on idiot scenarios that have no basis in reality.

You attribute a level of casualness and inhumanity to these decisions that has no basis in reality, while ignoring the very real issues of poverty and lack of worker protections that drive the abortion rate in the US.

You ignore the poverty and the lack of health care or job protections for low income workers and instead paint these women as selfish who have no morals.

You go with these ridiculous conservative anti-abortion talking points that don’t address any of the real issues driving the reasons for abortions.

oh my god, just answer the question. I pretty much cited the reasons you gave about your friend getting her abortion. And so far your only answer has been, “well that’ll never happen.” Uh, yes that absolutely could happen. And stop avoiding the question. Trump is president, any fucking thing can happen at this point.

No it absolutely couldn’t. And you can’t find a single example where it did. No doctor would perform such a procedure and no woman would ask for an abortion at such a late date. These are just campfire tales to rile up stupid conservatives against abortion.

Even the late term babies born without brains are delivered normally so that their organs can be harvested for transplants. So that the parents have at comfort of knowing that other families will have a happy ending from their loss.

But not one of you anti-abortion types have given a single reason why women should be stripped of their rights to make decisions about whether or not to have a baby.

You are absolutely smoking crack. No, it's not common for women to wait that long to get an abortion, but it does happen. About 1% of all abortions in the US every year are third-trimester. Some of the reasons given are the possibility that the child has a birth defect, or a life change such as the relationship with her partner ending. Even Planned Parenthood doesn't try to pretend it never happens.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5113/9611/5527/Abortion_After_first_trimester.pdf

And no, third-trimester abortions typically are not "delivered normally". The standard procedure is actually to euthanize the baby in utero, then induce labor so that the child is delivered stillborn.

Finally, PRO-LIFERS have given you the reasons why this so-called right should never have been invented in the first place. The fact that you refuse to listen and hear them because you don't want to deal with it and would prefer to live in this warm, fuzzy fantasy world you've made for yourself is not on us.

Its against the law in the US and no not 1% wait till the end of pg to abort. Give us a link on that.

No it isn’t illegal, in Oregon there are ZERO restrictions on abortion. That means you could literally abort before delivery just because you feel like it. New Mexico is similar, same with DC, and I think Vermont too. Y’all should be all for that though, because right to privacy, right?

No, Late-Term Abortions Don't 'Rip' Babies Out Of Wombs -- And They Exist For A Reason

educate yourself , very seldom does one get an abortion in the 3rd trimester, and its not do to want, there is usually a severe medical condition of the fetus or Mom.

 

[Montrovant]

It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?

Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.

The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.

Because she did not want an abortion and probably would of carried to term. Murder is killing the women and so the fetus has no chance of becoming a viable infant.

What may or may not have happened in the future doesn't matter, though. If a fetus, before a certain stage of development, is not a person, is in fact an extension of the mother's body, how can the fetus be murdered?

People it is simple, there is but one question, is a fetus alive?

All kinds of things are alive without us granting them the sort of protection and value we do with people.

Yes, but only one kind of thing is alive and a member of the human race.

And there are all kinds of things that are alive and not human which are given far more respect and protection than human fetuses, by the exact same people who want to treat fetuses like infected tonsils.

I just don't like when the argument is put so simply as whether or not a fetus is alive.

 

[Montrovant]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

Or he walked away “mad as hell” because that’s a dumb false equivalency. Who actually ever claims to see God? People may believe god intervenes in unseen ways, but the percentage of religious people who claim to see god has to be in the .0001 percentile, and those people aren’t usually considered to be playing with a full deck. Christians believe in free will, while atheist do not (not the prominent ones who can make intelligent arguments at least). It would kind of throw a wrench in the whole free will thing if we could actually see or prove god. It doesn’t require a whole lotta faith to count on the sun rising every morning.

On the other hand, people claim to see ghosts all the time. Using logical fallacies to “disprove” god isn’t something to be proud of bub.

Who are the prominent atheists who do not believe in free will? Are they determinists?

How would proof of god remove free will? A person would still have the freedom to choose to follow or not god's laws, wouldn't they? Free will doesn't only exist in regards to things that one has no proof for. Free will and faith are not the same thing.

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris most notably, and pretty much any of the prominent atheist who promote atheism, spend a good bit of their focus on atheism, and actually debate these issues. Basically the ones who make the best arguments. It’s kind of determinism, but that’s not the best descriptor. It’s more like all of your actions come from a recipe made up of genetics, neurons firing in your brain, communicative chemicals in your brain, learned behaviors, and evolutionary adaptations. There’s plenty of other atheist out there who don’t spend as much time thinking about these issues who believe in free will, but I wouldn’t call them the prominent ones, even if they are famous, it’s for something outside of atheism.

And knowing god exists effectively would eliminate free will. If you were really really stupid, hardheaded, and narcissistic maybe you knowingly reject “gods commands”...but that would take one assuming they know better than the all powerful, all knowing, all seeing thing that created the universe that they only comprehend an extremely small fractional percentage of. This would be like your average person saying that they’re a better basketball player than Lebron, and then challenging Lebron to a game. Except times a couple million or billion, idk, like that but to a way worse extent. You’d have to be delusional to do so.

Whether a choice is easy or not doesn't change that it is a choice. Free will is not dependent upon the difficulty involved in the choices made.

I think there are probably quite a few people who would say they know god exists.

If someone thinks they are a better basketball player than LeBron James, that is an opinion, not a choice. Deciding to challenge him to a game would be a choice, regardless of the odds of winning that game.