Yup. I was there in 1975--the women were dressed normally. We regarded it as a step up from Pakistan and Afghanistan.
I appreciate getting one substantive reply.I take it this is intended as a non-religious argument against abortion?
But no, I've not made any argument against abortion in this thread.
I understand that, sort of. It's one religious argument, there are others. I don't much care about any of them.The religious argument, as I understand it, is internally consistent. It posits the existence of a God, who then grants something called a “soul” to each individual human (though not to other animals, apparently). Moreover, it holds that God “ensouls” humans at conception, so a zygote has a soul. Ergo to abort a zygote or early-stage fetus is basically to murder a human being because a human is defined as an entity with a soul, full stop.
Despite its internal consistency, the claims are without a shred of evidence. There’s no evidence for God (and plenty of evidence against even the possibility of such a being) and no evidence for souls. It’s not even clear what a soul is supposed to be. Finally even if you could adduce evidence for God and souls you would then have to show that God ensouls at conception as opposed, say, to at birth, or even at age five. Or maybe sperm and unfertilized eggs are already “pre-souled,” in which case masturbation, for example, is murder.
I've annoyed religionists before by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If unborn humans have souls and are completely innocent and innocents go to heaven. Good parents are trying to get their children to heaven. Obviously, abortion is the ideal child rearing method. Keeping the baby alive at the risk of their soul is quite selfish. God will understand.
Correct.So what’s the scientific argument against abortion?
There isn’t one.
Science doesn't have any moral messages to give. Information is all science can offer.
Tom
P.s. There's lots more in your post to discuss, but I've gotta go now
But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.
This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.
You're talking to someone who argued with a straight line that it's not bad for the state to force organ donations under a precedent that will clearly lead to judicial abuse, after arguing it wasn't absolutely and clearly judicial abuse to turn a rape baby over to the rapist who produced her, at the same age he raped her mother.I appreciate getting one substantive reply.I take it this is intended as a non-religious argument against abortion?
But no, I've not made any argument against abortion in this thread.
I understand that, sort of. It's one religious argument, there are others. I don't much care about any of them.The religious argument, as I understand it, is internally consistent. It posits the existence of a God, who then grants something called a “soul” to each individual human (though not to other animals, apparently). Moreover, it holds that God “ensouls” humans at conception, so a zygote has a soul. Ergo to abort a zygote or early-stage fetus is basically to murder a human being because a human is defined as an entity with a soul, full stop.
Despite its internal consistency, the claims are without a shred of evidence. There’s no evidence for God (and plenty of evidence against even the possibility of such a being) and no evidence for souls. It’s not even clear what a soul is supposed to be. Finally even if you could adduce evidence for God and souls you would then have to show that God ensouls at conception as opposed, say, to at birth, or even at age five. Or maybe sperm and unfertilized eggs are already “pre-souled,” in which case masturbation, for example, is murder.
I've annoyed religionists before by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If unborn humans have souls and are completely innocent and innocents go to heaven. Good parents are trying to get their children to heaven. Obviously, abortion is the ideal child rearing method. Keeping the baby alive at the risk of their soul is quite selfish. God will understand.
Correct.So what’s the scientific argument against abortion?
There isn’t one.
Science doesn't have any moral messages to give. Information is all science can offer.
Tom
P.s. There's lots more in your post to discuss, but I've gotta go now
This is fine, and I look forward to more, but then I just noticed in the Kidney Challenge thread you wrote:
But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.
This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.
Bolded bits by me.
So if in this thread, in its very opening, you were not making a non-religious argument against abortion, what were you doing? Do you believe abortion is the killing of a baby? A baby, of course, is only a baby upon birth.
And how do you reconcile “Science doesn’t have any moral messages to give” with attacking people for failing ”to use science to inform your moral code”? Sounds like a contradiction to me.
This, @pood , is kinda why I stopped bothering with this thread.You're talking to someone who argued with a straight line that it's not bad for the state to force organ donations under a precedent that will clearly lead to judicial abuse, after arguing it wasn't absolutely and clearly judicial abuse to turn a rape baby over to the rapist who produced her, at the same age he raped her mother.I appreciate getting one substantive reply.I take it this is intended as a non-religious argument against abortion?
But no, I've not made any argument against abortion in this thread.
I understand that, sort of. It's one religious argument, there are others. I don't much care about any of them.The religious argument, as I understand it, is internally consistent. It posits the existence of a God, who then grants something called a “soul” to each individual human (though not to other animals, apparently). Moreover, it holds that God “ensouls” humans at conception, so a zygote has a soul. Ergo to abort a zygote or early-stage fetus is basically to murder a human being because a human is defined as an entity with a soul, full stop.
Despite its internal consistency, the claims are without a shred of evidence. There’s no evidence for God (and plenty of evidence against even the possibility of such a being) and no evidence for souls. It’s not even clear what a soul is supposed to be. Finally even if you could adduce evidence for God and souls you would then have to show that God ensouls at conception as opposed, say, to at birth, or even at age five. Or maybe sperm and unfertilized eggs are already “pre-souled,” in which case masturbation, for example, is murder.
I've annoyed religionists before by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If unborn humans have souls and are completely innocent and innocents go to heaven. Good parents are trying to get their children to heaven. Obviously, abortion is the ideal child rearing method. Keeping the baby alive at the risk of their soul is quite selfish. God will understand.
Correct.So what’s the scientific argument against abortion?
There isn’t one.
Science doesn't have any moral messages to give. Information is all science can offer.
Tom
P.s. There's lots more in your post to discuss, but I've gotta go now
This is fine, and I look forward to more, but then I just noticed in the Kidney Challenge thread you wrote:
But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.
This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.
Bolded bits by me.
So if in this thread, in its very opening, you were not making a non-religious argument against abortion, what were you doing? Do you believe abortion is the killing of a baby? A baby, of course, is only a baby upon birth.
And how do you reconcile “Science doesn’t have any moral messages to give” with attacking people for failing ”to use science to inform your moral code”? Sounds like a contradiction to me.
I don't know how much good faith you can possibly find there.
Of course abortion is not killing a baby but good luck getting Tom to actually tell you 100% of what he feels about the subject and why.
So you didn't argue that you would see the state strap someone down and take their kidney?This, @pood , is kinda why I stopped bothering with this thread.You're talking to someone who argued with a straight line that it's not bad for the state to force organ donations under a precedent that will clearly lead to judicial abuse, after arguing it wasn't absolutely and clearly judicial abuse to turn a rape baby over to the rapist who produced her, at the same age he raped her mother.I appreciate getting one substantive reply.I take it this is intended as a non-religious argument against abortion?
But no, I've not made any argument against abortion in this thread.
I understand that, sort of. It's one religious argument, there are others. I don't much care about any of them.The religious argument, as I understand it, is internally consistent. It posits the existence of a God, who then grants something called a “soul” to each individual human (though not to other animals, apparently). Moreover, it holds that God “ensouls” humans at conception, so a zygote has a soul. Ergo to abort a zygote or early-stage fetus is basically to murder a human being because a human is defined as an entity with a soul, full stop.
Despite its internal consistency, the claims are without a shred of evidence. There’s no evidence for God (and plenty of evidence against even the possibility of such a being) and no evidence for souls. It’s not even clear what a soul is supposed to be. Finally even if you could adduce evidence for God and souls you would then have to show that God ensouls at conception as opposed, say, to at birth, or even at age five. Or maybe sperm and unfertilized eggs are already “pre-souled,” in which case masturbation, for example, is murder.
I've annoyed religionists before by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If unborn humans have souls and are completely innocent and innocents go to heaven. Good parents are trying to get their children to heaven. Obviously, abortion is the ideal child rearing method. Keeping the baby alive at the risk of their soul is quite selfish. God will understand.
Correct.So what’s the scientific argument against abortion?
There isn’t one.
Science doesn't have any moral messages to give. Information is all science can offer.
Tom
P.s. There's lots more in your post to discuss, but I've gotta go now
This is fine, and I look forward to more, but then I just noticed in the Kidney Challenge thread you wrote:
But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.
This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.
Bolded bits by me.
So if in this thread, in its very opening, you were not making a non-religious argument against abortion, what were you doing? Do you believe abortion is the killing of a baby? A baby, of course, is only a baby upon birth.
And how do you reconcile “Science doesn’t have any moral messages to give” with attacking people for failing ”to use science to inform your moral code”? Sounds like a contradiction to me.
I don't know how much good faith you can possibly find there.
Of course abortion is not killing a baby but good luck getting Tom to actually tell you 100% of what he feels about the subject and why.
People like Jarhyn can write the most ridiculously false and insulting things and nobody will care.
Tom
Like I said pood...So you didn't argue that you would see the state strap someone down and take their kidney?This, @pood , is kinda why I stopped bothering with this thread.You're talking to someone who argued with a straight line that it's not bad for the state to force organ donations under a precedent that will clearly lead to judicial abuse, after arguing it wasn't absolutely and clearly judicial abuse to turn a rape baby over to the rapist who produced her, at the same age he raped her mother.I appreciate getting one substantive reply.I take it this is intended as a non-religious argument against abortion?
But no, I've not made any argument against abortion in this thread.
I understand that, sort of. It's one religious argument, there are others. I don't much care about any of them.The religious argument, as I understand it, is internally consistent. It posits the existence of a God, who then grants something called a “soul” to each individual human (though not to other animals, apparently). Moreover, it holds that God “ensouls” humans at conception, so a zygote has a soul. Ergo to abort a zygote or early-stage fetus is basically to murder a human being because a human is defined as an entity with a soul, full stop.
Despite its internal consistency, the claims are without a shred of evidence. There’s no evidence for God (and plenty of evidence against even the possibility of such a being) and no evidence for souls. It’s not even clear what a soul is supposed to be. Finally even if you could adduce evidence for God and souls you would then have to show that God ensouls at conception as opposed, say, to at birth, or even at age five. Or maybe sperm and unfertilized eggs are already “pre-souled,” in which case masturbation, for example, is murder.
I've annoyed religionists before by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If unborn humans have souls and are completely innocent and innocents go to heaven. Good parents are trying to get their children to heaven. Obviously, abortion is the ideal child rearing method. Keeping the baby alive at the risk of their soul is quite selfish. God will understand.
Correct.So what’s the scientific argument against abortion?
There isn’t one.
Science doesn't have any moral messages to give. Information is all science can offer.
Tom
P.s. There's lots more in your post to discuss, but I've gotta go now
This is fine, and I look forward to more, but then I just noticed in the Kidney Challenge thread you wrote:
But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.
This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.
Bolded bits by me.
So if in this thread, in its very opening, you were not making a non-religious argument against abortion, what were you doing? Do you believe abortion is the killing of a baby? A baby, of course, is only a baby upon birth.
And how do you reconcile “Science doesn’t have any moral messages to give” with attacking people for failing ”to use science to inform your moral code”? Sounds like a contradiction to me.
I don't know how much good faith you can possibly find there.
Of course abortion is not killing a baby but good luck getting Tom to actually tell you 100% of what he feels about the subject and why.
People like Jarhyn can write the most ridiculously false and insulting things and nobody will care.
Tom
Or maybe you didn't argue that giving a rape baby to her mother's rapist was not necessarily a travesty of justice?
Because the first, in the environment of the second, leads to shit like forced kidney theft by legal jackassery.
Except, of course, that I'm actually pointing at things you said and believed and have not even yet rescinded.Like I said pood...So you didn't argue that you would see the state strap someone down and take their kidney?This, @pood , is kinda why I stopped bothering with this thread.You're talking to someone who argued with a straight line that it's not bad for the state to force organ donations under a precedent that will clearly lead to judicial abuse, after arguing it wasn't absolutely and clearly judicial abuse to turn a rape baby over to the rapist who produced her, at the same age he raped her mother.I appreciate getting one substantive reply.I take it this is intended as a non-religious argument against abortion?
But no, I've not made any argument against abortion in this thread.
I understand that, sort of. It's one religious argument, there are others. I don't much care about any of them.The religious argument, as I understand it, is internally consistent. It posits the existence of a God, who then grants something called a “soul” to each individual human (though not to other animals, apparently). Moreover, it holds that God “ensouls” humans at conception, so a zygote has a soul. Ergo to abort a zygote or early-stage fetus is basically to murder a human being because a human is defined as an entity with a soul, full stop.
Despite its internal consistency, the claims are without a shred of evidence. There’s no evidence for God (and plenty of evidence against even the possibility of such a being) and no evidence for souls. It’s not even clear what a soul is supposed to be. Finally even if you could adduce evidence for God and souls you would then have to show that God ensouls at conception as opposed, say, to at birth, or even at age five. Or maybe sperm and unfertilized eggs are already “pre-souled,” in which case masturbation, for example, is murder.
I've annoyed religionists before by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If unborn humans have souls and are completely innocent and innocents go to heaven. Good parents are trying to get their children to heaven. Obviously, abortion is the ideal child rearing method. Keeping the baby alive at the risk of their soul is quite selfish. God will understand.
Correct.So what’s the scientific argument against abortion?
There isn’t one.
Science doesn't have any moral messages to give. Information is all science can offer.
Tom
P.s. There's lots more in your post to discuss, but I've gotta go now
This is fine, and I look forward to more, but then I just noticed in the Kidney Challenge thread you wrote:
But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.
This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.
Bolded bits by me.
So if in this thread, in its very opening, you were not making a non-religious argument against abortion, what were you doing? Do you believe abortion is the killing of a baby? A baby, of course, is only a baby upon birth.
And how do you reconcile “Science doesn’t have any moral messages to give” with attacking people for failing ”to use science to inform your moral code”? Sounds like a contradiction to me.
I don't know how much good faith you can possibly find there.
Of course abortion is not killing a baby but good luck getting Tom to actually tell you 100% of what he feels about the subject and why.
People like Jarhyn can write the most ridiculously false and insulting things and nobody will care.
Tom
Or maybe you didn't argue that giving a rape baby to her mother's rapist was not necessarily a travesty of justice?
Because the first, in the environment of the second, leads to shit like forced kidney theft by legal jackassery.
It's like trying to discuss ancient history with YEC, or politics with a TeaPartier.
Tom
On a more visceral level, I think that men oppose abortion because If women can choose whether or not carry a pregnancy, then it loosens the power a man or men have over her.uh no, that's simply historical fact.Dayum.the abortion issue is about the fact that back in the 70s the KKK was freaking the fuck out that abortion was going to cost whites the breeding wars,
That's quite an assertion.
www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096154028/the-movement-against-abortion-rights-is-nearing-its-apex-but-it-began-way-before
www.thenation.com/article/politics/anti-abortion-white-supremacy
www.oah.org/tah/issues/2016/november/abolishing-abortion-the-history-of-the-pro-life-movement-in-america
those articles mostly speak to the fact that nobody in religious circles (excepts catholics) really gave a shit about abortion until the late 70s when suddenly the religious right did a 180 and went ape shit on the subject.
those articles don't mention it specifically, but i've read profiles on many prominent religious leaders of the era connecting them with KKK members and the beginnings of what is essentially the 'great replacement' theory.
fears that economically stable educated white women get abortions which will lead to whites being demographically replaced by not-whites is, and always has been, the beating heart of the anti-abortion movement.