What is the meaning of life for the atheist
in [Physics]
|
From: Jimbo on 5 Aug 2010 12:04 On Aug 4, 4:43 pm, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3 Aug, 19:11, Jimbo <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 1:11 pm, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 2, 5:43 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 2, 9:24 am, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 2, 1:45 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 11:22 pm, "Dr. HotSalt" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 31, 11:17 am, SkyEyes <skyey...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 4:55 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I am anti-abortion. For me it's not about spirituality. > > > > > > > > > > Abortion is not only murder (causing the death of an innocent) by > > > > > > > > > human law, it is a crime against the species. > > > > > > > > > And slavery *isn't*? Because, face it, that's what forcing a woman to > > > > > > > > have a child she does not want amounts to. > > > > > > > > Nowadays we know what causes pregnancy. > > > > > > > Not even remotely the point. > > > > > > I think you'll find it's closely related > > > > > Not even in the slightest. > > > > You're quite right. I should not have implied, nor considered, that > > > you would follow the argument or have a rationale that justifies your > > > assertions.- Hide quoted text - > > > They've already been justified. > > You're trying to conflate two unrelated issues. > > Possibly, but I don't believe so. > > > We do not live on Fantasy Island, so the chances of > > eliminating all unwanted/undesired pregnancies, or eliminating > > conditions where a pregnancy may have been wanted/desired initially, > > wasn't after conception. Abortion cannot simply be wished away. > > Do you have statistics on the percentage ratio of unintentional- > unwanted v intentional-unwanted? Not relevant to what I stated, or for the purposes of this discussion.
From: Jimbo on 5 Aug 2010 12:05 On Aug 5, 11:44 am, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > "Jimbo" <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am anti-abortion. For me it's not about spirituality. > > > > > > > > > Abortion is not only murder (causing the death of an innocent) > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > human law, it is a crime against the species. > > > > > > > > And slavery *isn't*? Because, face it, that's what forcing a > > > > > > > woman to > > > > > > > have a child she does not want amounts to. > > > > > > > Nowadays we know what causes pregnancy. > > > > > > Not even remotely the point. > > > > > I think you'll find it's closely related > > > > Not even in the slightest. > > > Sigh. All this time and you didn't look in the Obvious Bag. > > > it is exactly the point. > > > If you aren't pregnant, you don't need to consider having an > > abortion, now do you? > > < > <But the fact remains that unwanted pregnancies do happen, they have > <always happened, and they will continue to happen, so how is that > <relevant to the discussion about the right to chose to abort? Such > <pregnancies can be reduced by proper education, birth control/condoms, > <etc......but they are never going away. > > The question is whether or not what you are killing (aka "aborting") > is a human being. 36 weeks don't cut it. Where's your line? > What would be your line for dominion over what goes on in your body, and by what right does the government have to control whether or not a woman has to give birth? I don't really see that power within the Constitution. What we are talking about is competing rights under the secular civil law. What you may or may not believe "cuts it" is not relevant. Our courts hae consistently found that a living person's rights must, by definition of human rights, supercede the pre-born, or post living. While I don't like the fact that abortion exists, I find that a government basically forcing a woman to gestate to be far less desireable.
From: Excognito on 5 Aug 2010 14:14 On Aug 5, 6:37 pm, Apostate <Apost...(a)yeehaw.org.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 12:45:42 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > >"Jimbo" <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote > > >> > > > > > > > I am anti-abortion. For me it's not about spirituality. > > >> > > > > > > > Abortion is not only murder (causing the death of an > >> > > > > > > > innocent) > >> > > > > > > > by > >> > > > > > > > human law, it is a crime against the species. > > >> > > > > > > And slavery *isn't*? Because, face it, that's what forcing a > >> > > > > > > woman to > >> > > > > > > have a child she does not want amounts to. > > >> > > > > > Nowadays we know what causes pregnancy. > > >> > > > > Not even remotely the point. > > >> > > > I think you'll find it's closely related > > >> > > Not even in the slightest. > > >> > Sigh. All this time and you didn't look in the Obvious Bag. > > >> > it is exactly the point. > > >> > If you aren't pregnant, you don't need to consider having an > >> > abortion, now do you? > > >> < > >> <But the fact remains that unwanted pregnancies do happen, they have > >> <always happened, and they will continue to happen, so how is that > >> <relevant to the discussion about the right to chose to abort? Such > >> <pregnancies can be reduced by proper education, birth control/condoms, > >> <etc......but they are never going away. > > >> The question is whether or not what you are killing (aka "aborting") > >> is a human being. 36 weeks don't cut it. Where's your line? > >< > ><What would be your line for dominion over what goes on in your body, > ><and by what right does the government have to control whether or not a > ><woman has to give birth? I don't really see that power within the > ><Constitution. > > >Um, the Constitution recognized Common Law lock, stock, and > >barrel. Murder is illegal even if there are no statutes saying so. > > >If the feds and every state eliminated all laws against murder, then > >murder is still illegal under Common Law. > > Nope. > Under common law, what the king might do to a subject is illegal. > There are no common law felonies or misdemeanors, and > certainly no crime-by-crime sanctions in common law. > > To have a distinct prescribed set of sanctions for specific crimes > requires statutes. > > >Killing a human being is the worst thing you can do. The question > >is when does a fetus become a human being. > > >ANSWER THAT or shut up. > The law in each jurisdiction answers that. > Whether it's *RIGHT* or not isn't a question of law. > You're allowed to dislike the law for its failure to uphold religious > notions of right and wrong, but notice that those are regarded as > subjective (by all not so arrogant as to believe that their own > opinions are objectively true and binding on nature.) You are also allowed to dislike a law even if you do not have a religious basis for doing so. Please disabuse yourself of the notion that this yet another religious v atheist argument. An individual's religious views may influence aspects of their analysis, but that does not mean that it has no merit on its own or that a non-religious person has a better argument, or would even disagree. I believe that most atheists contributing to this forum would agree that murder is legitimately a crime despite it being one of the Ten Commandments. Furthermore, not all religions, or even groupings within a religion, regard abortion as necessarily sinful, although they probably have limits on how late one can be performed, eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml.
From: Excognito on 5 Aug 2010 16:16 On 5 Aug, 21:08, Jimbo <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 12:45 pm, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > You try aborting some 30 month There is currently a ban on late term abortions, at the federal level, EXCEPT where the long term health and/or life of the mother may be compromised. So, depending on the situation, a 30 month abortion could be obtained without court involvement. .... and just about every human development authority you could think of. 9 months is bad enough, but 30 of 'em? Wow!
From: Jimbo on 5 Aug 2010 16:23
On Aug 5, 4:16 pm, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 Aug, 21:08, Jimbo <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 12:45 pm, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > > You try aborting some 30 month > > There is currently a ban on late term abortions, at the federal > level, > EXCEPT where the long term health and/or life of the mother may be > compromised. So, depending on the situation, a 30 month abortion > could be obtained without court involvement. > > ... and just about every human development authority you could think > of. 9 months is bad enough, but 30 of 'em? Wow! lol! I wasn't paying attention, I completely missed that. What is that? I think that a Blue Whale's pregancy only lasts 21 months. Obviously, I think both of us meant weeks. |