So, the abortion issue is now back in the limelight...

[89Hen]

Tripp, what does religion have to do with our discussion on this board?

Look back through this thread and tell me religion doesn't play an oversized role in the abortion debate.

Now look at which organizations lead the charge against Roe v. Wade and bear the flag of the pro-life movement and tell me religion doesn't play an oversized role in the abortion debate.

Just because religious organizations want to say that it's not a religious debate, it doesn't make it true.

Leave the population alone that doesn't give a shit about what religious people think.

Try again Trip. The only person that posted something from a religious POV was 93 and he's pro-choice. He only did that for effect. None of my pro-life stance is from my church. It's only from logic.

[∞∞∞]

Look back through this thread and tell me religion doesn't play an oversized role in the abortion debate.

Show me where anyone who even leans to the pro-life side has mentioned God. You won't even find that in any of the other abortion threads.

I realize Churches don't actually give a crap about God anymore, but they pretend to represent Him. So with all due respect, look back at how many times Church or parish or whatever is mentioned in the thread.

Also look around the country at who's fighting Roe v. Wade, and why many of us find it important to vigorously fight back. It's not simply about the right of choice, but also about separation of church and state.

[89Hen]

Show me where anyone who even leans to the pro-life side has mentioned God. You won't even find that in any of the other abortion threads.

I realize Churches don't actually give a crap about God anymore, but they pretend to represent Him. So with all due respect, look back at how many times Church or parish or whatever is mentioned in the thread.

And just look around the country at who's fighting Roe v. Wade, and why many of us find it important to vigorously fight back. It's not simply about the right of choice, but it's about separation of church and state.

I think it's you that needs to go back and read the thread Trip. The talk of church and parish were sidebars to the discussion and had no bearing on it. Nobody here uses religion as argument for a pro-life stance. You either need to read up or shut up.

[Silenoz]

Also look around the country at who's fighting Roe v. Wade, and why many of us find it important to vigorously fight back. It's not simply about the right of choice, but also about separation of church and state.

As a left-leaning moderate who thinks religion is a blight on humanity, I see your "fight" as an attempt at separation of state and logic/science...

[∞∞∞]

I realize Churches don't actually give a crap about God anymore, but they pretend to represent Him. So with all due respect, look back at how many times Church or parish or whatever is mentioned in the thread.

And just look around the country at who's fighting Roe v. Wade, and why many of us find it important to vigorously fight back. It's not simply about the right of choice, but it's about separation of church and state.

I think it's you that needs to go back and read the thread Trip. The talk of church and parish were sidebars to the discussion and had no bearing on it. Nobody here uses religion as argument for a pro-life stance. You either need to read up or shut up.

You live in a complete fantasy world. There is no logic; it's arguments masquerading behind religious motivations. You can fool yourself if you want though...your life. The rest of us will continue caring about not ruining a woman's life.

[Silenoz]

The rest of us will continue caring about not ruining a woman's life.

...while not giving any fucks for the kid that was just killed

[89Hen]

I think it's you that needs to go back and read the thread Trip. The talk of church and parish were sidebars to the discussion and had no bearing on it. Nobody here uses religion as argument for a pro-life stance. You either need to read up or shut up.

You live in a complete fantasy world. There is no logic; it's arguments masquerading behind religious motivations. You can fool yourself if you want though...your life. The rest of us will continue caring about not ruining a woman's life.

So much fail. There is no evidence of religious motivation because there is none. And you're so noble for allowing a woman to kill her child.

[89Hen]

Jon: You're sexist.

Trip: You're a religious nut.

You guys rock.

[Skjellyfetti]

allowing a woman to kill her child.

You always try your damnedest to equate it to murder.

So, I'll just assume that if abortion were to be illegal, you'd want women who have abortions tried tried with premeditated murder. Thanks for finally answering.

[Col Hogan]

Tripp, what does religion have to do with our discussion on this board?

Look back through this thread and tell me religion doesn't play an oversized role in the abortion debate.

Now look at which organizations lead the charge against Roe v. Wade and bear the flag of the pro-life movement and tell me religion doesn't play an oversized role in the abortion debate.

Just because religious organizations want to say that it's not a religious debate, it doesn't make it true.

Leave the population alone that doesn't give a **** about what religious people think.

https://www.secularprolife.org/

Yes, There Are Pro-Life Atheists Out There. Here’s Why I’m One of Them

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... e-of-them/

https://www.facebook.com/AtheistsAgainstAbortion/

I am an atheist, a 29-year-old woman, well-educated at secular institutions, and I lean liberal on many issues, including same-sex marriage and climate change.

I am also a dedicated pro-life activist, working to make abortion unthinkable.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politic ... man-rights

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/categor ... ur-family/

[JoltinJoe]

Isn't part of the argument that we don't know when human life begins? Does it begin at conception? When the heart beats? At birth when we take our first breath?

I'm not arguing - I just don't know the argument from a "bio-ethics" side.

https://bdfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... _print.pdf

Me neither. That’s why I asked. It’s obviously a soft science and depends on which set of morals we’re using.

A twin-celled human organism is plainly present at conception.

It is life. We call an amoeba a "life."

It is created by humans.

Thus, it is a human life.

If you want to say it isn't sentient, or doesn't have a heartbeat, or isn't viable apart from its host -- that's all true.

If you want to say it isn't entitled to any legal protection because of any of the foregoing, I suppose you can hold that opinion. On a personal level, I disagree with that position and I believe it is a very troubling moral position.

What you can't say is that it isn't human life.

[dbackjon]

Jon: You're sexist.

Trip: You're a religious nut.

You guys rock.

[SDHornet]

When does the life of a child begin for a liberal?

When they reach the border.

This is the irony I love about the whole border protesting thingy...but it actually applies to both sides as 93 pointed out with his earlier comment about where are all the robust support programs for these mothers that decide to keep their offspring.

[AZGrizFan]

I think it's you that needs to go back and read the thread Trip. The talk of church and parish were sidebars to the discussion and had no bearing on it. Nobody here uses religion as argument for a pro-life stance. You either need to read up or shut up.

You live in a complete fantasy world. There is no logic; it's arguments masquerading behind religious motivations. You can fool yourself if you want though...your life. The rest of us will continue caring about not ruining a woman's life.

Coming from the kid who wants to rip up the Constitution, completely upend our form of government that’s made America the greatest country on the planet in just 200+ years, have 30,000 representatives, only allow 5 staffers, and have solar powered battleships, that’s quite a statement.

[CID1990]

I think it's you that needs to go back and read the thread Trip. The talk of church and parish were sidebars to the discussion and had no bearing on it. Nobody here uses religion as argument for a pro-life stance. You either need to read up or shut up.

You live in a complete fantasy world. There is no logic; it's arguments masquerading behind religious motivations. You can fool yourself if you want though...your life. The rest of us will continue caring about not ruining a woman's life.

You're using one of the most ham-fisted logical fallacies out there as the cornerstone of your argument

(What do the women in your life say?)

..and then accuse others of not using logic?

[Ivytalk]

You live in a complete fantasy world. There is no logic; it's arguments masquerading behind religious motivations. You can fool yourself if you want though...your life. The rest of us will continue caring about not ruining a woman's life.

Coming from the kid who wants to rip up the Constitution, completely upend our form of government that’s made America the greatest country on the planet in just 200+ years, have 30,000 representatives, only allow 5 staffers, and have solar powered battleships, that’s quite a statement.

He resembles the Rick Moranis character from Ghostbusters.

[∞∞∞]

You live in a complete fantasy world. There is no logic; it's arguments masquerading behind religious motivations. You can fool yourself if you want though...your life. The rest of us will continue caring about not ruining a woman's life.

Coming from the kid who wants to rip up the Constitution, completely upend our form of government that’s made America the greatest country on the planet in just 200+ years, have 30,000 representatives, only allow 5 staffers, and have solar powered battleships, that’s quite a statement.

I want change and I'm open about my motivations. However, I'm also grounded in the reality of the situation and understand there's an equally strong will by others to hold this nation back.

But 89 is fooling himself into thinking his choices aren't driven by religion. Or he's trying to fool us.

I can forgive that though. What I can't forgive are people who when asked, don't fight against the notion that a teen or woman should suffer, potentially for life, because "actions have consequences." As if a teenage girl cold-bloodily murdered an innocent person instead of terminating a collection of cells (in their own bodies) that have no memories, no consciousness, and less of anything than the chicken we regularly kill and eat.

It's already a tough decision and potentially traumatic. But on top of that, we're going to add medically unsafe, life threatening, and criminal (including up to murder?). That is a sick fantasy.

[GannonFan]

Me neither. That’s why I asked. It’s obviously a soft science and depends on which set of morals we’re using.

A twin-celled human organism is plainly present at conception.

It is life. We call an amoeba a "life."

It is created by humans.

Thus, it is a human life.

If you want to say it isn't sentient, or doesn't have a heartbeat, or isn't viable apart from its host -- that's all true.

If you want to say it isn't entitled to any legal protection because of any of the foregoing, I suppose you can hold that opinion. On a personal level, I disagree with that position and I believe it is a very troubling moral position.

What you can't say is that it isn't human life.

JJ's got it right here. From a purely science perspective, human life starts at conception. Whether we decide to protect it there or not, that doesn't change the truth of that reality.

Today's laws that permit abortion basically put legal abortion around the first trimester, which just happens to be where medical science today can take a human life out of the womb and still have it survive, with assistance. When medical science improves, as it always does, and that threshold of when a human life can be removed from the womb and still survive gets closer and closer to conception, we'll have to deal with that reality. But there's no denying the fact that, from a scientific perspective, human life begins at conception.

[Ibanez]

Me neither. That’s why I asked. It’s obviously a soft science and depends on which set of morals we’re using.

A twin-celled human organism is plainly present at conception.

It is life. We call an amoeba a "life."

It is created by humans.

Thus, it is a human life.

If you want to say it isn't sentient, or doesn't have a heartbeat, or isn't viable apart from its host -- that's all true.

If you want to say it isn't entitled to any legal protection because of any of the foregoing, I suppose you can hold that opinion. On a personal level, I disagree with that position and I believe it is a very troubling moral position.

What you can't say is that it isn't human life.

I think a collection of cells and something without a heartbeat can be aborted. I realize that's a 4-week window and most people don't realize their pregnant for much longer.

It's not perfect, but neither are humans. Not every person getting an abortion is some hood rat. Sometimes it's a married couple, with the means but not the desire to have children.


A lot more compassion and understanding on each side would go a long way in this debate.

[AZGrizFan]

A twin-celled human organism is plainly present at conception.

It is life. We call an amoeba a "life."

It is created by humans.

Thus, it is a human life.

If you want to say it isn't sentient, or doesn't have a heartbeat, or isn't viable apart from its host -- that's all true.

If you want to say it isn't entitled to any legal protection because of any of the foregoing, I suppose you can hold that opinion. On a personal level, I disagree with that position and I believe it is a very troubling moral position.

What you can't say is that it isn't human life.

JJ's got it right here. From a purely science perspective, human life starts at conception. Whether we decide to protect it there or not, that doesn't change the truth of that reality.

Today's laws that permit abortion basically put legal abortion around the first trimester, which just happens to be where medical science today can take a human life out of the womb and still have it survive, with assistance. When medical science improves, as it always does, and that threshold of when a human life can be removed from the womb and still survive gets closer and closer to conception, we'll have to deal with that reality. But there's no denying the fact that, from a scientific perspective, human life begins at conception.

Put all those 4-15 week old fetuses in holding cells at the border and watch the tables turn.

[andy7171]

JJ's got it right here. From a purely science perspective, human life starts at conception. Whether we decide to protect it there or not, that doesn't change the truth of that reality.

Today's laws that permit abortion basically put legal abortion around the first trimester, which just happens to be where medical science today can take a human life out of the womb and still have it survive, with assistance. When medical science improves, as it always does, and that threshold of when a human life can be removed from the womb and still survive gets closer and closer to conception, we'll have to deal with that reality. But there's no denying the fact that, from a scientific perspective, human life begins at conception.

Put all those 4-15 week old fetuses in holding cells at the border and watch the tables turn.

So wrong, but also very funny. I bet the fetuses get treated much better.

[93henfan]

Look back through this thread and tell me religion doesn't play an oversized role in the abortion debate.

Now look at which organizations lead the charge against Roe v. Wade and bear the flag of the pro-life movement and tell me religion doesn't play an oversized role in the abortion debate.

Just because religious organizations want to say that it's not a religious debate, it doesn't make it true.

Leave the population alone that doesn't give a shit about what religious people think.

Try again Trip. The only person that posted something from a religious POV was 93 and he's pro-choice. He only did that for effect. None of my pro-life stance is from my church. It's only from logic.

I'm pro-life.

And you all can shuck and jive all you want, but you know the pro-life movements are driven by Catholics primarily. Trip is right on that one. Don't kid yourselves.

[Col Hogan]

Try again Trip. The only person that posted something from a religious POV was 93 and he's pro-choice. He only did that for effect. None of my pro-life stance is from my church. It's only from logic.

I'm pro-life.

And you all can shuck and jive all you want, but you know the pro-life movements are driven by Catholics primarily. Trip is right on that one. Don't kid yourselves.

Did you see the list of atheist’s posts I put up? That was just the first few from a quick Google search...

Yes, We Catholics tend to be drivers in the anti-abortion movement...but we by no way are the preponderance of the movements membership...

It’s a moral issue much, much more than a religious issue..

[GannonFan]

Try again Trip. The only person that posted something from a religious POV was 93 and he's pro-choice. He only did that for effect. None of my pro-life stance is from my church. It's only from logic.

I'm pro-life.

And you all can shuck and jive all you want, but you know the pro-life movements are driven by Catholics primarily. Trip is right on that one. Don't kid yourselves.

So why are Catholics alone in being pro-science in this debate? What is making other religions and atheists into Luddites?

[89Hen]

allowing a woman to kill her child.

You always try your damnedest to equate it to murder.

So, I'll just assume that if abortion were to be illegal, you'd want women who have abortions tried tried with premeditated murder. Thanks for finally answering.

Assume all you want. Just like Cleetus and Trip love to assume that religion has anything to do with my position.