Question for Atheists: Abortion

[_dblagent007]

Taking the high road now, are we? I guess your glib response to my understanding of how God operates is simply a distant memory by now.

You said that god operates by a) letting things run their natural course and b) intervening, sometimes by natural means. Or something like that. My response (while glib, I'll give you that...I do get tired of indefensible god of the gaps arguments) pointed out why I thought your position was weak. I apologize for being glib.

Why?

I discussed why in my last few posts on this topic.

The answer to this, why a believer believes, really goes far beyond the topic of this thread. Besides, I think this has been thoroughly hashed out already.

Yep. I'm not really interested in discussing why a believer believes, either. I would like to discuss how you know that god is intervening in a natural process if he does so by implementing natural means. In other words, if a fetus is miscarried (i.e. aborted naturally), how do you know if god did it or if it was a natural way for the body to discard a problematic embryo?

But isn't discussing "how you know that God is intervening in a natural process" the same thing as discussing why a believer believes? At least from a Mormon point of view? In other words, don't most Mormons know something is from God in the same way that they know that there is a God?

Since most processes occur naturally and God ordinarlly does not get involved, I would assume a miscarriage is just a miscarriage, unless I had some reason to believe otherwise.

[_silentkid]

But isn't discussing "how you know that God is intervening in a natural process" the same thing as discussing why a believer believes? At least from a Mormon point of view? In other words, don't most Mormons know something is from God in the same way that they know that there is a God?

Since most processes occur naturally and God ordinarlly does not get involved, I would assume a miscarriage is just a miscarriage, unless I had some reason to believe otherwise.

I've moved my thoughts on some of this to KA's thread. I'm trying to come at this from a different angle and I'm having a hard time putting it into coherent sentences. The part of your comment that I bolded is what I'm trying to pursue.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

SUAS wrote:
Expecting Adam was a very good book...Which I read before you were probably even born.

I hope that you DARTMAN..actually read before you post CRAP like this thread AGAIN.

Cause I will find it and then I will be back...

Really this is just another STUPID THREAD by another STUPID MAN..

Who on earth is this comment directed toward? Kevin?

At the risk of offending Pirate (whom I like), this is a vintage Pirate post, except with manifest vitriol (which she endearingly lacks).

What's your point, exactly?

You read Expecting Adam in 2000, when Kevin was, what (per your insinuation), seven years old?

Or, have I completely misread you?

This isn't the first time I have been compared with SUAS. Thanks for the lack of vitriol though, hahaha. I don't think it's quite "vintage", I think I have posted far more "vintage" posts than this.

Haha, by the way, I'm not offended.

[_dartagnan]

God's magnificence.

I guess you're referring to the buzzard since you don't find anything special in our own species.

[_Jersey Girl]

Ah, yes. We should have killed him earlier. Doing it now is just so messy and barbaric. Nevermind that his life may get better, or that his parents' may have had the means to take care of him back when they had him.

The child was a female. It's unlikely she made it to the feeding center. It was about 2 kilometers away. She was attempting to walk there by herself. She collapsed from weakness.

So. That being said. Was this child better off having been born in hellacious circumstances, starved to death, and probably predated upon by a vulture until she died an excruciating death, or would it have been more humane to have sterilized the woman/man or perform an abortion so this child didn't have to live a miserable existence?

What makes it ok for you is the myth you allow yourself to believe. But if there's no existence beyond this one, then it's incredibly cruel to allow something to exist and experience pain and desperation until it's killed by another animal. However, if we as a people developed humane ways to usher people out of this life in a comfortable manner, how much better would it have been to euthanize the child instead of letting it be eaten by an animal? Ah. I see. You don't like taking the element of "chance" out of the equation. How very Christian of you.

I'm sure we won't be able to agree, however looking at this picture, and viewing it through your eyes makes me wonder how you can worship an entity that is supremely cruel and arbitrary to have even set something like this up in the first place.

*waiting on Mormon platitudes in 3, 2, 1...*

Why do you ask such brainless questions here, antishock8?

or would it have been more humane to have sterilized the woman/man or perform an abortion so this child didn't have to live a miserable existence?

Idiot! It would have been more humane to FEED THEM!!!

Who was running the alleged feeding center?

Who took the picture?????

Omg... I read more of your post:

However, if we as a people developed humane ways to usher people out of this life in a comfortable manner, how much better would it have been to euthanize the child instead of letting it be eaten by an animal?

How DARE YOU, antishock! How dare you use a photo of a starving child to promote euthanasia and mock believers in order to do what, exactly? Score points against believers on a message board?

No, antishock. The far more humane thing to do is TAKE A PHOTO of a starving child next to a freaking vulture and post it on the internet in an attempt to appeal to emotion instead of feeding the child itself.

You unconscionable IDIOT!

The only myth here is that you have a functioning brain and a conscience.

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK

What an ugly thread this has been. Dart, have you been watching more T.V than usual lately?

Ugly? Instead of taking Dart to task for creating this thread, why don't you take a gander at what antishock has done here and comment on THAT, GoodK?

You wanna see ugly? Check out antishock's position that people who live in underdeveloped countries should be sterilized and their children KILLED, but not before we take a PHOTO of the children, instead of feeding them!

You see, that's his response to the "myth" that believers subscribe to.

It's not that people like himself who probably hog down Big Mac's twice a week, sit their asses at Starbucks with a Latte' should open their pockets and FEED PEOPLE.

No, we should sterilize them and KILL their children!

How about you comment on that, GoodK??

[_antishock8]

Jersey Girl,

People WERE being fed. That's where the child was headed. To a feeding center. The human being who took the picture left the child there to die, by the way. You take that picture to its logical end...

I know you want to excuse your god from any wrongdoing, and blame someone like me for being so braindead and horrible, but I'm not the one that would have an animal eat a kid to death. That's your god. Your god was smart enough to create both creatures knowing what their ultimate fate would be. How YOU live within that paradigm and still come out of it thinking your god is peachy is beyond me.

So. Let's compare for a moment:

Antishock8: Sterilize poor woman so she doesn't have kid in the first place, or abort fetus so child doesn't ultimately starve death and get eaten by vulture...

Jersery Girl's God: Woman makes it to feeding center leaving baby behind to be eaten by wild animal, goes on to birth 12 more humans, 9 of which die of malnutrition, 3 of which grow up to birth 30 more babies, 20 of which die of malnutrition, 10 of which grow up to birth 67 more babies, 54 of which die of malnutrition or are ultimately slaughtered/raped to death in ethnic struggle for scarce resources.

And you have the audacity to judge me. Where I support the sterilization of one woman, or the abortion of a kid you support the continued cycle and ultimate miserable deaths of thousands spawned by one woman. YOU and YOUR religious mindset cause the needless ultimate suffering of millions through overpopulation or mismanagement of our own species. Your irresponsible approach to the human question begets pain and misery. All I ask for is a little compassion so we can cause LESS suffering in the overall scheme of things.

I offer a solution that cuts back on the sum total of human misery. You offer a solution that offers an exponential increase in misery. Who's the vile creature now? That would be you.

by the way, if you want to get personal with me do so at your own risk. I generally don't initiate personal attacks, but fair warning... I will get personal and I'll probably take it to a place you don't want to go. Probably best to check yourself.

[_Jersey Girl]

Yet another fine example of intellectual mush, antishock. Let's pick through the rubble of your "thinking" and see what we unearth.

Jersey Girl,

People WERE being fed. That's where the child was headed. To a feeding center. The human being who took the picture left the child there to die, by the way. You take that picture to its logical end...

When a human being takes a photo of a starving child and leaves it there to die just 2 klicks from a feeding center instead of transporting it there to be treated, yes, of course that's the logical end. The humanitarian end, of course, would have been for the adult to transport the child for treatment. But it would seem that the photog was more interested in getting a damn fine photo that you mistakenly "thought" you could use as a vehicle to forward your "argument" for sterilizing adults and killing children who would have likely grown to become healthy adults if only folks were willing to give up a Big Mac or two during the week in order to supply the funding needed to FEED it. Gosh, I do hope the photog, after walking away from the child having got their "shot", went on a good coffee break and had a donut or something while patting him/herself on the back for their genius.

I know you want to excuse your god from any wrongdoing,

Who is my god, antishock? What is my religious affiliation? What church do I go to? No god let the child starve, human beings saw to that.

and blame someone like me for being so braindead and horrible, but I'm not the one that would have an animal eat a kid to death.

Of course you aren't the one that would have an animal eat a kid to death. The photographer who took the photo and abandoned the child to the animal is the one who made that choice for the child. Thanks for sharing that wonderful image with us. We owe a debt of gratitude to the photog who snapped it, don't we?

That's your god. Your god was smart enough to create both creatures knowing what their ultimate fate would be.

I repeat. Who is my god, antishock? No really, tell me. What are my religious convictions? Tell me what I believe.

How YOU live within that paradigm and still come out of it thinking your god is peachy is beyond me.

Please show me any post on this board or any other board, where I have stated that "my god" is peachy. The issues that you're "discussing" here, have not a damn thing to do with a god. They have to do with human greed and indifference.

So. Let's compare for a moment:

Antishock8: Sterilize poor woman so she doesn't have kid in the first place, or abort fetus so child doesn't ultimately starve death and get eaten by vulture...

Feeding the child doesn't occur to you, does it?

Jersery Girl's God: Woman makes it to feeding center leaving baby behind to be eaten by wild animal, goes on to birth 12 more humans, 9 of which die of malnutrition, 3 of which grow up to birth 30 more babies, 20 of which die of malnutrition, 10 of which grow up to birth 67 more babies, 54 of which die of malnutrition or are ultimately slaughtered/raped to death in ethnic struggle for scarce resources.

Nowhere have I attributed any of my posts on this thread to a "god". If you feel differently, I challenge you to repost any remark I've made that includes speaking for a god. If you want to make crap up, fine with me. My answer to the situation that you describe is for greedy human beings to feed and educate people.

And you have the audacity to judge me.

I haven't judged you, I've judged your position as exploitive.

Where I support the sterilization of one woman, or the abortion of a kid you support the continued cycle and ultimate miserable deaths of thousands spawned by one woman.

I have? News to me. It's clear to me that you have no blessed clue what I support even after reading my posts here. I sure as hell don't support an adult photographing a starving child then walking away to let it die.

YOU and YOUR religious mindset cause the needless ultimate suffering of millions through overpopulation or mismanagement of our own species.

What is my religious mindset? Show me anywhere on this thread or on this board or on any other board where I've used religion to oppose your brand of exploitation of children on this thread. Can you read?

Your irresponsible approach to the human question begets pain and misery. All I ask for is a little compassion so we can cause LESS suffering in the overall scheme of things.

And you would do that by sterlization, killing living children instead of feeding and educating them. Yes, your compassion is simply palpable.

I offer a solution that cuts back on the sum total of human misery. You offer a solution that offers an exponential increase in misery. Who's the vile creature now? That would be you.

You offer a solution that doesn't require you to push yourself and others out of their own comfort zone or connect with other human beings on a global scale. You'd rather exploit a child instead of bashing the adult who walked away from the child. You see nothing wrong with that level of inhumanity, avoid acknowleding it and you yourself use the child as a vehicle with which to forward a criticism against god believers on an internet message board. My hat's off to you!

by the way, if you want to get personal with me do so at your own risk. I generally don't initiate personal attacks, but fair warning... I will get personal and I'll probably take it to a place you don't want to go.

Take it any place you want, sweetie. If you want to give me a demonstration of your self deluded thinking by all means: get personal with a stranger.

Probably best to check yourself.

Posture till the cows come home. You're hysterical.

[_antishock8]

All right you stupid snatch. Let's do this.

1) You're the religionist. Not me. You're the one that thinks there's a guy who lives far far away, who set up this Big Plan for our benefit, who is all-knowing, and yet isn't culpable for the very results that he himself knows is going to happen. Either that, or you don't give a crap , and that just makes you a crazy bitch.

2) You clearly don't want to accept the notion that the architect of your grand scheme is responsible, to any degree, for his creations. Never mind that he is all-powerful. Nevermind he is all-knowing. It's the photog's fault for letting that child die. Even though your god created the photog and knew from the outset what the photog would do, it's the photog's fault. Not the creator's fault. Got news for ya. The photog was just doing what he was designed to do. Period. An all-knowing creator cannot create something and not know what that creation will do under any circumstance. Free-agency simply doesn't exist under a paradigm in which an all-knowing and all-powerful being exists and controls all. It's just the way it is, and I know it bothers you when you when you actually are forced to confront the reality of life... But YOUR god doesn't intervene... EVER.

Oh. Wait. We're talking about Mormonism, aren't we? We can just pretend that this doesn't apply because it doesn't suit your feelings on the matter.

Yeah.

3) You're a fat, lazy, hypocrite. Have YOU been to Africa? Have you? Have YOU fed starving children in Africa? Have you gone to Liberia and worked to innoculate thousands against small pox? Why haven't you adopted dozens of unwanted kids from the Third World? No. Of course not. You can't be bothered with actually living up to your convictions. You're just a typical Mormon hypocrite that writes off her convictions, and expects, somehow, that the world will magically come to its sense and starts living within the morality of your convictions. Good luck with that you ignorant twat.

4) YOUR reality begets, in the big picture, in the grand scheme of things, much more misery than my reality. Please explain to me how sterilizing a poor African woman, and preventing her from reproducing in spades, thus causing ultimately thousands of deaths through disease, starvation, and war is NOT more moral than letting her breed freely. Please. Go ahead. The floor is yours you overweight cow. You idiotic damned sack of vacuous turd-for-brains. You foul beast who would condemn thousands of children to a miserable death because YOU ain't gonna do nuthin' for them anyway (I don't see you haulin' your pasty ass over to Africa to distro wheat to the teeming masses). You and your kind who love to pontificate from afar and legislate misery so your religious little mind can be at peace on Sundays while you suck down a piece of white bread and water and sing praises to an adulterous pedophile in order to feel at ease with the world. You're a hypocrite. You're fat, damned American hypocrite, who hasn't done crap with her life, ain't gonna do crap with her life, and will never do crap with her life other than become someone's sex object and birth vessel.

Congrats. You've achieved the ultimate within Mormondom. You are someone's pussy, and breeder. Let's not think about poor black kids in Africa who get pecked to death by a vulture. Someone else, I'm sure, is setting up a feeding center, I'm sure, somewhere, I'm sure. And all that death and beheading and nastiness... Well, it's far away and it's their problem, anyway because they don't have the gospel.

[_Jersey Girl]

All right you stupid snatch. Let's do this.

1) You're the religionist. Not me. You're the one that thinks there's a guy who lives far far away, who set up this Big Plan for our benefit, who is all-knowing, and yet isn't culpable for the very results that he himself knows is going to happen. Either that, or you don't give a s*** , and that just makes you a crazy bitch.

2) You clearly don't want to accept the notion that the architect of your grand scheme is responsible, to any degree, for his creations. Never mind that he is all-powerful. Nevermind he is all-knowing. It's the photog's fault for letting that child die. Even though your god created the photog and knew from the outset what the photog would do, it's the photog's fault. Not the creator's fault. Got news for ya. The photog was just doing what he was designed to do. Period. An all-knowing creator cannot create something and not know what that creation will do under any circumstance. Free-agency simply doesn't exist under a paradigm in which an all-knowing and all-powerful being exists and controls all. It's just the way it is, and I know it bothers you when you when you actually are forced to confront the reality of life... But YOUR god doesn't intervene... EVER.

Oh. Wait. We're talking about Mormonism, aren't we? We can just pretend that this doesn't apply because it doesn't suit your feelings on the matter.

Yeah.

3) You're a fat, lazy, hypocrite. Have YOU been to Africa? Have you? Have YOU fed starving children in Africa? Have you gone to Liberia and worked to innoculate thousands against small pox? Why haven't you adopted dozens of unwanted kids from the Third World? No. Of course not. You can't be bothered with actually living up to your convictions. You're just a typical Mormon hypocrite that writes off her convictions, and expects, somehow, that the world will magically come to its sense and starts living within the morality of your convictions. Good luck with that you ignorant twat.

4) YOUR reality begets, in the big picture, in the grand scheme of things, much more misery than my reality. Please explain to me how sterilizing a poor African woman, and preventing her from reproducing in spades, thus causing ultimately thousands of deaths through disease, starvation, and war is NOT more moral than letting her breed freely. Please. Go ahead. The floor is yours you overweight cow. You idiotic f*****g sack of vacuous turd-for-brains. You foul beast who would condemn thousands of children to a miserable death because YOU ain't gonna do nuthin' for them anyway (I don't see you haulin' your pasty ass over to Africa to distro wheat to the teeming masses). You and your kind who love to pontificate from afar and legislate misery so your religious little mind can be at peace on Sundays while you suck down a piece of white bread and water and sing praises to an adulterous pedophile in order to feel at ease with the world. You're a hypocrite. You're fat, f*****g American hypocrite, who hasn't done s*** with her life, ain't gonna do s*** with her life, and will never do s*** with her life other than become someone's sex object and birth vessel.

Congrats. You've achieved the ultimate within Mormondom. You are someone's pussy, and breeder. Let's not think about poor black kids in Africa who get pecked to death by a vulture. Someone else, I'm sure, is setting up a feeding center, I'm sure, somewhere, I'm sure. And all that death and beheading and nastiness... Well, it's far away and it's their problem, anyway because they don't have the gospel.

Is that your idea of getting "personal" with a stranger on a message board? You're hysterical!

Now, would you like to direct it to one of the LDS women on the board?

Idiot.