[Mr. Vega]

And yes, I am a Catholic. Personally, I think atheists are the ones who have not obtained the highest level of moral order, since they seem to willfully blind themselves to fully opening up and seeing the true wonder that this universe is.

Funny - we think exactly the same about you theists. Does this not bother you?

[Mongoose]

It does not bother me, because I am absolutely secure in my beliefs.  I mean no offense to any atheists on this board.  I have found it interesting, however, that the average Internet bulletin board seems to attract a disproportionately large number of atheists.  I have no idea why this is, but I do find it curious.

[Kazan]

security does not imply correctness - i am able to defend my position with evidence and logic, you cannot

you find a disproportionately large number of atheists online because the internet attracts a disproportionately high concentration of intelligent people - and there is a direct correlation between intelligence and tendancy to be atheist (not insult intended - just stating the facts)


Mongoose if your kind didn't insist on forcing everyone else to comform to your authoritarian views it wouldn't be neccesary to eliminate your kind (peacefully) from the face of the planet

[Ford Prefect]

Well, I would go with "liberal" except that I don't believe in patriotism, which, I can't deny, pretty much puts me in the "uber-liberal" category.

Personally, I think atheists are the ones who have not obtained the highest level of moral order, since they seem to willfully blind themselves to fully opening up and seeing the true wonder that this universe is.

That's an old one: "Atheists are too analytical, they take the beauty out of everything, etc."

I disagree. I believe the appreciation of beauty to be an inescapable aspect of the human psyche. The religious tendency is one manifestation of this, but one does not have to intellectually embrace the idea of a god to stand in awe of the universe. I am of the school of thought that says that everything we experience is ulitimately the result of totally random chance. I do not believe in any god, and I am convinced that the only laws truly set in stone are the laws of physics. But at the same time, I think that the human tendency towards religion is not something to be laughed at or "purged" from society. I see a very close relationship between religion and the artistic tendency; I see god as something woven into the mind, and at its best, it is a beautiful thing. I can't ignore something like Mozart's "Requiem" as inconsequential.

[Mr. Vega]

1. Perhaps people on the internet (at least those who register at bulletin boards like these) are affected by the information they have easy access to (stated less impartially, they are better educated)?

2. The internet is one of the few places atheists can readily discuss this with others?

Probably a combination of both.

Edit-Kazan beat me to it

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Mr. Vega


Ok, but from an emotional standpoint the fetus posseses brain function (and thus it can feel) before that, even if it isn't conscious, so the distinction between it and a newborn baby or a child vanishes (again, on a strictly emotional standpoint, but emotions are why we care about living things).

appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy

Originally posted by Mr. Vega
I have been pro-choice but I'm starting to have second thoughts. If you can convince me, great. If not, I keep thinking.

You don't have the right to force your views on others, and they ask you to remember this -- they extend you the same curteousy by not limiting your speech

[edit]
redacted

[GoulMeister]

Mongoose is a religous zealot who belives in god and the churches infalibility, his abortion and contraception views are old and ultimatly wrong, aborption will never affect the birth rate in any major way as a minority of people have them, stem cell research is a great advance and religous types like you are holding it back. contraception is nessacary as people enjoy sex and like to do it without having children, condoms also help prevent the spread of aids.

IF god exists and you were right none of this would be possible as god would just prevent anything he disliked and if he does exist and all this is possible (it is) god is on our side since he/she/it has not stoped it.

[Black Wolf]

Oh ****! I knew I should have tried harder  to pick that chick up the other night. Sorry mongoose, I might have just killed your nineteen future, poverty stricken, half mentally disabled, childrens' potential best mate.

Mr. Vega: I am opposed to artificial contraception, so yes, I think it is a shame when couples decide to not have children.

You know what! Me too! AIDS doesn't hurt - who needs it? Bunch of pussies those dang niggers in Africa, right?

I did not say that I was against all stem-cell research; stem cells can be obtained from umbilical cords and even the adult body. What I am against is killing embryos to obtain stem cells. It's not hard to see how this could easily lead to "farming" embryos for usable cells. Now that's a frightening concept.

You know what! Me too! I mean, just because they're second class stem cells, that shouldn't make a difference! God'll sort 'em out - just pray a bit, and they'll become viable for the kind of research we need to cure things like Alzheimers, or to grow replacement organs.

Oh, and GhoulMeister



Fortunately, he's in the (vocal) minority.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Mongoose
Kazan, if "maturation" means becoming something like you, I'll wholeheartedly stay immature.  At least I still have a shred of decency and morality.

because you cannot comprehend post-conventional morality you try to say I am without it.  I assure you I behave more morally than 75% of christians

Originally posted by Mongoose
And yes, I am a Catholic.

That explains a lot

Originally posted by Mongoose
Personally, I think atheists are the ones who have not obtained the highest level of moral order,

Psychological sciences say you're full of it

Originally posted by Mongoose
since they seem to willfully blind themselves to fully opening up and seeing the true wonder that this universe is.

No, we simply face reality that if there isn't evidence, it cannot be rationally believed.   the Universe can be appreciated as beautiful without having to attribute it to inexistant deities

Originally posted by Mongoose
By the way, psychological quackery and techno-babble doesn't impress anyone; most of us have realized that you can't simply explain away some things in this world.

No, you prefer to ignore the explainations in favor of your own selfish emotionality -- reality is not whim to the emotional desires of an individual

Originally posted by Mongoose
What's more, you keep avoiding one of my primary assertions:  How is killing a preborn child "merciful"?

I've explained this, you haven't comprehended the answer

Originally posted by Mongoose
If that fetus had a voice, would it agree?

Irrevelant

Originally posted by Mongoose
It is very disturbing that you feel that no life is better than a life with hardships.

Ask a slave which is worse - life in bondage or death

Originally posted by Mongoose
Again, I say that many have risen up out of impoverished, difficult lifestyles and have made a difference in this world.

Indeed, however they are the vast minority

Originally posted by Mongoose
By your logic, however, these people would never have existed.

So what, someone else would have done it -- this is the "Steven Hawking Fallacy"

Originally posted by Mongoose
And just explain it to be clearly:  how do people not have the right to be born?

The Bad Samaritan rule -- if someone else has to be deprived of their bodily integrity, health, etc for your gain then you are not entitled to the gain

Originally posted by Mongoose
The most basic and fundamental of human rights is the right to live, without oppression and fear of death.

ONCE YOU'RE BORN

Originally posted by Mongoose
Read the Declaration of Independence, unless you consider it beneath you.

I've read it - it's above you

Originally posted by Mongoose
As I said before, that unborn "lump of cells" has every right to exist that its mother has.

However by the Bad Samaritan Rule she has more rights

Originally posted by Mongoose
After all, the mother helped bring it into existence; she therefore has the responsibility to care for it.

Yeah.. becoming pregnant from being raped is a good example.   Or thinking the guy is going to stick around and he splits.  There are a million good reasons why not to bring a child into the world

Originally posted by Mongoose
And, as I keep repeating ad nauseam, all of us were once embryos.  This is not an irrelevant fallacy but a cold fact.

No ****, and a highly irrevelant one to this thread of the discussion

Originally posted by Mongoose
The fact that none of us would even be here if our mothers had chosen abortion is a solid truth.  Could you try giving an intelligent response to it, instead of continuing in your own sense of "higher being"?

Once again irrevlant -- this is the "Steven Hawking Fallacy"

Originally posted by Mongoose
I'm just thankful that I've never met someone like you, who seems so self-absorbed in their own psychological "superiority."

Yes you have, you just didn't know it because they didn't feel the need to reproach you for your backwardness

Originally posted by Mongoose
And yet I'm "1,000,000 times worse" for wanting to save the lives of unborn children.

At the cost of their quality of life, at the cost of their mothers health, at the cost of the standard of living for all civilization.

Originally posted by Mongoose
Yeah, I see the psychological rationale in that.  If that's what true advancement feels like, I'll continue to be ignorant and blissful, thank you very much.

*Sighs* not even going to try and explain it

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
[Fortunately, he's in the (vocal) minority.[/color]

except that minority thinks they have can mandate morality for all

[Mr. Vega]

appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy

Why?

If that's true, then why do you care about abortion, or anything else for that matter?

I am sick and tired of people viewing logic and emotion as mutually exclusive. Probably the fault of the early Christians/Catholics, worried about the influence of Greek logic, trying to emphasize their irrationality, and you've played right into it.

I am concerned about whether a fetus should be valued as a human life. The reason I am concerned is because of empathy. Despite my lack of morals, I will not kill another human because of empathetic reasons. Is that a logical fallacy? No, it's not, because logic does apply here in that sense. Logic does not create motivation. It is pointless on its own.

You don't have the right to force your views on others, and they ask you to remember this -- they extend you the same curteousy by not limiting your speech

If a fetus cannot be considered a life, then, yes, you are perfectly correct. But if it is a life, then abortion violates the rights of another human, at which point your argument falls apart, by your own previous statements.

You response to my previous post was basically that my arguments were ****. You've expressed general ill will towards the opinions of Mongoose, me, and a few others (though sometimes for good reasons), and been lackadasical is stating your reasons for your own opinions. Right now you are acting far more irrationally than the Christians who have posted here have.

[GoulMeister]

"Fortunately, he's in the (vocal) minority" i hope that was not directed at me, i am for abortion and fully agree with kazan.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Mr. Vega




Why?

are you unfamiliar with the rules of logic -- whether something is true or not isn't subject the to emotional wants of an individual

Originally posted by Mr. Vega
If that's true, then why do you care about abortion, or anything else for that matter?

not related -- furthermore it is logical to care about rights and truth

Originally posted by Mr. Vega
I am sick and tired of people viewing logic and emotion as mutually exclusive.

They each have their own realms -- mixing them is dangerous

Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Probably the fault of the early Christians/Catholics, worried about the influence of Greek logic, trying to emphasize their irrationality, and you've played right into it.

No, no offense but you have already demonstrated a lack of understanding on the subject and a lack of understanding what i mean.  



the rest of your post is not worth replying to

[Kazan]

Originally posted by GoulMeister
"Fortunately, he's in the (vocal) minority" i hope that was not directed at me, i am for abortion and fully agree with kazan.

he was talking about mongoose

[GoulMeister]

I am concerned about whether a fetus should be valued as a human life

Do you consider your toenail human life, or a tumor. i dont consider a foetus sentient til it has a fully developed brain, then it is fully human as it can think. up to that point it might as well be a tumor.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Kazan


he was talking about mongoose

'Deed, should have clarified that.

[Mr. Vega]

are you unfamiliar with the rules of logic -- whether something is true or not isn't subject the to emotional wants of an individual

Ok, looking back at my post...asking Why was not what I meant. Sorry. And I agree with you there, but whether something is true or not true isn't the entirety of the issue.

not related -- furthermore it is logical to care about rights and truth

For solely logical reasons, no, there is no reason to care about rights and truth. Since you say I do not understand, please, enlighten me.

Judging from your response, you misunderstood me. I did not mean emotion should affect your logic. Using logic (which is based on the fact that reality is consistent) I understand things. Emotion motivates me to do things, based on what I have understood through logic. Sorry if I was not clear enough.

Do you consider your toenail human life, or a tumor. i dont consider a foetus sentient til it has a fully developed brain, then it is fully human as it can think. up to that point it might as well be a tumor.

Children no not have fully developed brains. Teenagers do not have fully developed brains. Argument refuted.

I am waiting (even hoping to an extent) that one of you will give me an argument (that a fetus cannot be compared to a human who has left to womb as a life) that I can't refute, but so far your arguments have been unconvincing.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Mongoose

As I said before, that unborn "lump of cells" has every right to exist that its mother has.

The problem is, there are many "lumps of cells" or perhaps even single cells which are living, potential-humans which are necessarily discarded all the time. It is natural.

Nocturnal emissions occur because the body needs to regulate the amount of sperm. These released sperm will most likely not become a born human, lots of potential humans lost there.

In the menstrual cycle ova are discarded from the body a week or so after ovulation. This is discarding potential humans.

Anyway if there is anything to blame for "lumps of cells" that you think of as potential humans being "killed" all the time, blame your allmighty God thing. According to you folks it designed/created the human body, I presume that would include menstruation and nocturnal emissions.

*shock* God designed humans to kill lots of innocent sperm that could become future Heisenburgs!

[GoulMeister]

Children are capeable of concious thought as are teenagers, foetus are not, if you think a foetus is clased as human life then why not sperm or an egg. a foetus is not human untill it developes its own brain to a point where it is capeable of concious or unconcious thought.

[Mr. Vega]

But a fetus is capable of unconcious thought. Does thought just suddenly start right when it leaves the womb?