The Abortion Debate (continued) (3 Viewers)

[KFunk]

Yup, you got it in one!

I hear what you're saying, but I'm boggling at the logistics of it all. If using contraceptives is like abortion, does that mean if you have sex you shouldn't use any protection against pregnancy, in bshoc's eyes? So if contraceptives are out, you shouldn't be able to have sex unless it's for procreative purposes? Whatever happened to good, fun, safe sex for pleasure? Or is that out too?

Condoms are still good - if they work then they've stopped fertilisation. If not then it would seem it's the woman's bad luck (acording to bshoc that is).

 

[ur_inner_child]

No no no, in bshoc's eyes, an abortion is anything terminating development after the sperm and egg make contact.

therefore:

IUD
Morning After Pill

= bad = abortifacient

and

Condoms
Pills

= Good = contraceptive

 

[withoutaface]

No no no, in bshoc's eyes, an abortion is anything terminating development after the sperm and egg make contact.

therefore:

IUD
Morning After Pill

= bad = abortifacient

and

Condoms
Pills

= Good = contraceptive

What about when the sperm's half way in and its tail's hanging out?

 

[*Minka*]

i wish they would invent a male pill that made my entire load sterile aslong as i kept taking the hormone or whatever. That would be so sweet, never have to worry about being trapped by some woman.

I'd love for that to be invented as well.

 

[bshoc]

I'm implying that your argument about them all turning into productive members of society in 20 years time is false, and that a larger percentage of abortions occur among women of lower socioeconomic status, and that a lot of children coming from such backgrounds do not become productive, and get caught in a welfare trap.

I don't buy it, since they don't publish the socioeconomic numbers of women having abortions, infact the average age of women who have abortions is increasing, and even your so called "low socioeconomic" indaviduals are pretty well off given world and historical numbers, a woman who can't afford a government subsidized pill is a woman out on the street. Maybe we can have clauses for arabs, aboriginals letting them have abortions since its usually their youths that end up bottle of the barrel (their own fault though)

The government should not spend all it's money just because it feels a need to spend every dollar it rakes in from taxes. If extra funds are in Iemma's coffers that don't need to be, then he should make tax cuts in the next financial year rather than spending it on crap.

You see that's why I dislike you libertarian types, you just shovel all sorts of random economic crap and hope it sticks. Fiscal policy was generally marginalized and removed as an economic tool back when the RBA was created, as such the government should spend and collect dollar for dollar, irreguardless whether taxes are 1% or punative, anything else just makes it harder for the RBA to do its job (which I'm sure you would agree, has been done pretty well via the OCM).

Finally, don't get me started on the depression. It was interventionalist policies that caused it, and as such high spending solutions to dig out of it would not be needed if not for interventionalist policies in the first place.

Governments started intervening after, not before the depression, infact government spending was the only thing keeping the western world from going third world.

And yes, let's all bow down to bshoc, who after less than 12cp of study knows everything there is to know about economics.

Yeah becuase I made such a claim right?

 

[bshoc]

Do you actually believe that?

Ofcourse, I never say anything I don't believe in, or talk about things I do not know.

 

[bshoc]

My brain is breaking at the logic.

At least the Catholic church is consistent!

Ur Inner Child has detailed the difference between preventing something from existing and killing something after its already exists, how can you not understand this concept?http://community.boredofstudies.org/members/ur_inner_child/

 

[bshoc]

As I said, if a woman is using the pill and a copper IUD, and the man uses condoms, there'd be a minute possibility of failure. If, however, that fails, is that not 'reasonable precaution'? I also wonder whether a couple, in such a case, should be allowed to sue the doctors who refused to perform a surgical sterilisation. Why take it out on a woman/couple who takes reasonable precautions just because you feel women are breeding machines?

Ok the scenario you describe has something like a 1 in 30 million chance of happening, its not worth discussion.

Forced lifers? You mean the life of a few cells is more important than a person (people, especially if the father will hang around) who is already alive? Have you ever considered the financial, emotional, psychological and physical implications of a person bearing a child when they are not ready?

No that was their job, and if they failed its not their childs job to suffer for it, understand? And its not a few cells, your so called fetus moves around, sucks its thumb, has a heartbeat etc. well before the first trimester is out, if you have ever watched an ultrasound of a fetus you would know that abortion after 2 weeks or so entails the killing of a living, breathing human infant.

Also you failed to understand, you said "forced birthers" should not be allowed to prevent people from having abortions, and I compared it to an equaly psuedo term - "forced lifers" - not allowing murderers to commit murder. If we are being objective abortion is a type of murder, nothing different.

Furthermore, I've no doubt many people in such a situation (especially if its a teenage pregnancy) feel their lives have been cut short, particularly as having children early reduces the likelihood of further education and therefore well-paid work. A welfare case, particularly if its generational, is detrimental to the economy. A well-educated, happy and healthy population is not.

I've already tried to explain the economics, its not a viable exuse, the government actually PAYS young mothers quite a larger stipend if they study

How so? How is a well-adjusted childless/free couple, with stable jobs worth less than that same couple with kids they don't want/can't afford?

Becuase those kids are worth another lifetime of economic labour.

I hardly feel supporting a welfare state entitles you to say you have a grasp of economics. Indeed, I suggest that it implies the opposite. Read what Justin says, and read it well.

Again it shows your ignorance, the very founders of economics, Smith, Keynes etc. all supported the welfare state to a degree.

I'm not saying parents don't work. I'm just saying I resent the fact I have to work so hard to pay for the welfare state that supports people who've a) made bad choices b) CHOSE to have kids or c) are forced into a situation they can't afford because of anti-choicers like you.

Oh man "anti-choicer" , ok if you dont let a murder chose to kill people or a rapist to rape people, is that "anti-choice" too?

:rofl:

 

[bshoc]

So we should all aspire to be ill-educated welfare bludgers, I guess? Comparing it to the so-called 'starving kids in Africa' is offtopic and ridiculous... wouldn't we rather aspire to a society where people are educated to a high standard and are able to earn their own wages without governmental support?

We already aspire to be this, but I'll let you in on little secret in economics, no matter how much a society will aspire to this, it's an unattainable goal. Welfare has it's advantages, for example lowering crime, comparitively police cost more and only solve the problem after a crime is commited, welfare works alot better here.

You still haven't answered my question. Should a person who's in my situation get pregnant because they've been refused sterilisation be allowed to sue the doctor who refused to perform said sterilisation? Sterilisation = the most responsible option if you truly don't want kids, because after it there is no chance of pregnancy. Since it's been available, for example, the procedure called Essure has not had a SINGLE failure rate.

Sterilisation? I'm not for sterilising anyone, you know, that's like mainly for nazis and all. Most of all however I have no intrest in any way discussing, regulating or forcing people's lives on such subjects.

But what if it was an accident? What if they planned to avoid conception through the pill and condoms? Should they suffer even though they planned responsibly?

It was still their decision to have sex, their responsibility, I'm not really concerned what preventative measures are taken etc. Governments have no place in bedrooms, that much is certain.

You're speaking to the wrong person here... I support late-term abortions, quite honestly, up until 26 weeks which is when it's been proven a fetus feels pain, and later if it's deformed/mother is in danger. The person who is already alive has priority. A fetus is a fetus is a fetus.

To quote the unborn victims of violence act (2004):

an "unborn child" is defined as "a member of the species Homo Sepiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb ...".

I don't see how you can proport to support "indavidual human economic liberty" and support the murder of 2/5th of all concieved humans whilst they're still in the womb. You've seen what a fetus looks like right, and what an abortion looks like? Becuase quite honestly you sound wrong, 99% of abortions take place when there is not a scrap of threat to the life of the mother.

So removal of a parasitic infection is murder? Removal of a tumour is murder? Removal of cancer is murder? Same thing...

No it's not, a fetus is in no way a part of a mother, for example a fetus can be male whilst the mother is female .. zing ..

Furthermore, as I said, abortion is not murder. It's the removal of cells, particularly in the early stages. It's a medical procedure. Stop being emotive.

And what exaclty are you made out of again? Rubber?

Thus shooting anyone could be justified as "removal of cells" correct?

Do you give a shit about the kid after it's born? Obviously not.

More than you obviously, since I support the welfare system that upkeeps struggling families.

I mean... imagine being an unwanted kid whose parents resent, abuse and neglect it because they were forced into having it. I'd rather no existence than one like that, to be quite frank.

Well thats your personal choice, most people would see differently, thus to be fair we have to birth the baby, grow it and ask the grown person whether he or she wishes to be aborted. Alot of good people have come from childhoods like that, terrible childhoods, unwanted children, but great people.

They shouldn't. It's another form of welfare... Just like having an abortion should be a choice, having a child should be a choice too. You shouldn't be subsidised for that choice. If I choose to look after a pet, do I get paid for that? Of course not!

Fifi isn't subject to the international convention on rights of the child and local child upkeep laws. Besides if the mother is bright enough to make it to uni, I'll happily have my taxes subsidize her, since she'll probably pay them back and then some later in life.

It's hard to argue with someone who has no concept of reality... and also very frustrating. In your utopia all mothers/fathers will love their kids the minute they've been born. Look at neglect and child abuse statistics. Also, the link between legalised abortions and lower crime rates has been proven.. did you ever think of that?

So has the link between welfare and crime, but hey you only care about aborting babies right? How the hell can you even begin to suggest that I have no concept of reality when you're the one comparing living human biengs to cancers in a particular human being? And arguing economic concepts without evidently a scrap of economic knowledge. Abortion is worse than child abuse, worse than crime, its the ultimate disrespect for life.

 

[bshoc]

Except for the fact you wish to force people to bear kids. That's the ultimate regulation... It's like, 'oooh! you had sex! bad girl!' essentially.

No its essentialy .. like you see .. like abortion is .. like ... about the like .. fetus .. and .. like I dont support sterilising fetuses either, becuase like I believe like every person like has an equal right to exist and live, I dont support abortion illigalization to restrict the mother or her sexuality in any way, I support it to protect the child's life which takes precedent over anything of this nature, as should all life of any age.

I refuse to debate any longer with someone who has not an idea of what they're talking about, and someone who resorts to insults and threats of violence. If you think I sound like a spoiled little twit because I believe that my own welfare is inherently more important than that of a fetus (given my medical situation this is mostly hypothetical anyhow) and that I believe in taking care of the people who are already here first, then I guess I must be one.

Your admittance of defeat is accepted. Good day.

 

[bshoc]

Actually, no, the life of the mother should come first and foremost.

Ofcourse, abortion kills one person (the baby) and the other one lives (the mother), whereas no abortion means both live.

And secondly, it's not defeat - it's frustration. If you want to resort to personal attacks and patronising comments, don't expect me to want to continue the debate. Whether or not you disagree with my position you should still be respectful, particularly since your childish antics got the previous thread closed. Don't be surprised if this one goes the same way, particularly with the way you're currently acting.

Which comments are you referring to exactly? (wasnt me who got the last thread closed btw.) I change whatever you find "patronising" and then you adress my point, ok?

edit: done

 

[KFunk]

No that was their job, and if they failed its not their childs job to suffer for it, understand? And its not a few cells, your so called fetus moves around, sucks its thumb, has a heartbeat etc. well before the first trimester is out, if you have ever watched an ultrasound of a fetus you would know that abortion after 2 weeks or so entails the killing of a living, breathing human infant.

If you had ever seen images of a conceptus at two weeks you should realise that it's incorrect to assert that you kill a breathing human infant. It's very much still a mass of cells by that point. A child has little chance of breathing at 20 weeks, let alone 2 (lungs are something of a prerequisite). While I'm sure it suits your argument to make the early embryo seem 'more alive' - you should try to avoid false information.

 

[*Minka*]

I agree that the life of the mother should always come first and foremost. The mother should also have complete control over her reproductive rights and to me, this includes the choice whether to not or have children and abortions. If someone does not support abortion, they should not have one, but they do not have the right to take that away from others.

Not every woman who has an unplanned pregnancy is a whore. Accidents happen, contraceptives fail, yet the woman does not deserve to be trapped as a result. Secondly, just because a woman enjoys sex does not mean she is a 'promoscious bimbo'.

There is no need to say that a woman who does not want children is worth less to the country or to men. Many man do not want children and woman who are working full time are making valued contribuitions to the economy and giving tax that pays for those completely fucked up baby bonuses. I don't want to give birth to children - that is my decision.

Not everyone believes a fetus is a human. A two week old fetus is in no way a human. You can have your own religious beliefs, but science will back me up on this one.

 

[*Minka*]

*Minka* that was an awesome post... have my unbabies?

We can have a Kitten? I like Kitties.

 

[bshoc]

I agree that the life of the mother should always come first and foremost. The mother should also have complete control over her reproductive rights and to me, this includes the choice whether to not or have children and abortions. If someone does not support abortion, they should not have one, but they do not have the right to take that away from others.

*yawn* you're so boring, shot down yet you come back again with the same lame points, I'll try and make this quick.

Thus by your logic, we have no right to take away the right to murder from murders (afterall a murderer is using his/her body the same way an abortive mother does), the right to rape from rapists (afterall they're just exercising their reproductive rights) and so on.

Not every woman who has an unplanned pregnancy is a whore. Accidents happen, contraceptives fail, yet the woman does not deserve to be trapped as a result. Secondly, just because a woman enjoys sex does not mean she is a 'promoscious bimbo'.

As long as she's with one man, no it doesen't (this applies the same way to men btw.). If the proper precautions are taken, there is literaly no chance a woman will fall pregnant, thus you're already making excuses for women who do not take the consequences of their actions seriously, and thats just not what western society stands for.

There is no need to say that a woman who does not want children is worth less to the country or to men. Many man do not want children and woman who are working full time are making valued contribuitions to the economy and giving tax that pays for those completely fucked up baby bonuses. I don't want to give birth to children - that is my decision.

And you know what, as I said, those men too are worth far less. Think about what would happen to humanity if everyone didn't want children, would you exist if your mother never wanted a child? Still its you're in your immature teenage rebelious phase and I'm sure by the time you're in your late 30's and that biological clock is nearly done, like most women you'll go on a baby rush, its almost always that way - but thats in the future.

Also note that relative to men, women's contributions to economics and so forth can be largely described as: minor, irrelevant or mostly non-existant. Thats not a jab at women, its historical fact.

Not everyone believes a fetus is a human. A two week old fetus is in no way a human. You can have your own religious beliefs, but science will back me up on this one.

Not everyone (ie. you), but the bioethics commitee that helped draft the unborn victims of violence act (2004) - which is:

an "unborn child" is defined as "a member of the species Homo Sepiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb ...".

Was chaired by relative experts in their fields, genetisits, biologists, other people with relevance in the field (ie. Fukuyama) and so forth - now who do you think I believe more, you and your "feminism", or their scientific expertise?

You also claim that all people who oppose abortion are religious zealots (I'm just a person who wants the bullshit and double standards to stop) - you claim that you "experiences" in your former country removed your belief in an all loving god. Now that means that war which you despise so much was the result of human action - and now I ask what that human action was, what is war other than an outright disrespect for life, treating life like crap if you will, removing (killing) people for convenience, now what exactly did you learn from that? Nothing apparently.

 

[Serius]

So we should all aspire to be ill-educated welfare bludgers, I guess? Comparing it to the so-called 'starving kids in Africa' is offtopic and ridiculous... wouldn't we rather aspire to a society where people are educated to a high standard and are able to earn their own wages without governmental support?



You still haven't answered my question. Should a person who's in my situation get pregnant because they've been refused sterilisation be allowed to sue the doctor who refused to perform said sterilisation? Sterilisation = the most responsible option if you truly don't want kids, because after it there is no chance of pregnancy. Since it's been available, for example, the procedure called Essure has not had a SINGLE failure rate.



But what if it was an accident? What if they planned to avoid conception through the pill and condoms? Should they suffer even though they planned responsibly?



You're speaking to the wrong person here... I support late-term abortions, quite honestly, up until 26 weeks which is when it's been proven a fetus feels pain, and later if it's deformed/mother is in danger. The person who is already alive has priority. A fetus is a fetus is a fetus.



So removal of a parasitic infection is murder? Removal of a tumour is murder? Removal of cancer is murder? Same thing...

Furthermore, as I said, abortion is not murder. It's the removal of cells, particularly in the early stages. It's a medical procedure. Stop being emotive.

Do you give a shit about the kid after it's born? Obviously not. I mean... imagine being an unwanted kid whose parents resent, abuse and neglect it because they were forced into having it. I'd rather no existence than one like that, to be quite frank.



They shouldn't. It's another form of welfare... Just like having an abortion should be a choice, having a child should be a choice too. You shouldn't be subsidised for that choice. If I choose to look after a pet, do I get paid for that? Of course not!

And whether or not economic theorists supported the welfare state you can be assured I most certainly don't and will side with Justin on this one.

It's hard to argue with someone who has no concept of reality... and also very frustrating. In your utopia all mothers/fathers will love their kids the minute they've been born. Look at neglect and child abuse statistics. Also, the link between legalised abortions and lower crime rates has been proven.. did you ever think of that?

you support abortions for no reason up to 26 weeks? you realise babies are viable well before then right? usless peice of trivia for you: my grandmother was one of the earliest premature babies in the sourthern hemisphere when she was born.

So now your distinction of human is not just based on if they could live outside... so where do we draw the line? are we allowed to abort viable babies just because they may be an inconvenience on our life?

I am sure its just youth talking, or maybe you dont really have a soul, i dont know. Either way its hard for me to comprehend your justification of killing babies based on rights

Your a female, so lets play to that. Do you like the current trend in china of sex selective abortion? oh hey your baby is 26 weeks and could live outside the uterus now... but hey,,, oh wait...damn... its a girl. So like, you want me to abort now? (pulls out the massive brain needle and discharges the acid into babys brain)

Abortion, even at 8 weeks is immoral. I cant even comprehend the morality of third trimester abortions.

 

[*Minka*]

Thus by your logic, we have no right to take away the right to murder from murders (afterall a murderer is using his/her body the same way an abortive mother does), the right to rape from rapists (afterall they're just exercising their reproductive rights) and so on.

I knew you'd say that because people like you are just so easy to predict. It is not the same because Abortion is not murder as you are not murdering another person. You are merely removing a fetus (potential human) from the uterus. There is a difference between POTENTIAL human and ACTUAL human. At the point where most abortions occur, the fetus is a POTENTIAL human and therefore not murder. Ditto with rapists - they are marning other people and thus infringing on their liberty and wright to saftey. An abortion does not harm anyone as once again, the fetus is not a person.

As long as she's with one man, no it doesen't (this applies the same way to men btw.). If the proper precautions are taken, there is literaly no chance a woman will fall pregnant, thus you're already making excuses for women who do not take the consequences of their actions seriously, and thats just not what western society stands for.

What I am saying is that accidents do happen. It is possible to get pregnant on the pill and for condoms to split. I firmly believe that all reasonable precautions should be taken to prevent pregnancy (the use of condoms and the pill) but do not believe a woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy if the reasonable precautions fail. They did take their actions seriously, something beyond their control happened, they have the right to the abortion. Likewise, even if someone had sex without using contraception, well, they still have the right to an abortion as do all women but I have far less sympathy for them in that case.

And you know what, as I said, those men too are worth far less. Think about what would happen to humanity if everyone didn't want children, would you exist if your mother never wanted a child? Still its you're in your immature teenage rebelious phase and I'm sure by the time you're in your late 30's and that biological clock is nearly done, like most women you'll go on a baby rush, its almost always that way - but thats in the future.

Reproduction is a choice. My mother and father had children because that is what they chose to do. My mother wanted children, I do not. Simple. They also respect the right of others to choose to do with their own lifes in regards to reproduction. And to make this clear, I have no desire whatsoever to give birth to children. If I choose to have children in the future, I will be adopting. I have no desire to naturally have a child when there are abandoned children in the world with no homes or future. If others want to have children anturally, they can do so, but that is MY choice.

Also note that relative to men, women's contributions to economics and so forth can be largely described as: minor, irrelevant or mostly non-existant. Thats not a jab at women, its historical fact.

It may be a fatc of history where women were treated like shit, but that is NO LONGER the case and for you to say so is an insult.

Not everyone (ie. you), but the bioethics commitee that helped draft the unborn victims of violence act (2004) - which is:

an "unborn child" is defined as "a member of the species Homo Sepiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb ...".

Was chaired by relative experts in their fields, genetisits, biologists, other people with relevance in the field (ie. Fukuyama) and so forth - now who do you think I believe more, you and your "feminism", or their scientific expertise?

I am sure that not every bioethics specialist would agree with that, nor would every doctor or medical professional. If it was drafted by an ethics committee, they must already have pre-conceived notions on the issue. Not everybody sees a fetus as a human.

You also claim that all people who oppose abortion are religious zealots (I'm just a person who wants the bullshit and double standards to stop) - you claim that you "experiences" in your former country removed your belief in an all loving god. Now that means that war which you despise so much was the result of human action - and now I ask what that human action was, what is war other than an outright disrespect for life, treating life like crap if you will, removing (killing) people for convenience, now what exactly did you learn from that? Nothing apparently.

I learnt that some loving god can not exist because if he did, he would not have sat back and watched the Yugoslavian Civil War and the astrociities that went on there. I also have no time for people using religious arguements against me because they mean bollocks. I have learnt that WAR is senseless, but WAR and ABORTION are two totally different things.

You should also note that in Yugoslavia, MANY women were raped by members of the arm, militia, gangs etc. They had no access to abortion, let alone decent health care (before my brother died, his leg was amputated with a CHAINSAW dammit) and psyocological help and were forced to carry rapists children. It MADE me see how hard carrying unwanted pregnancies is and why NO ONE should ever have the right tot ake that decision away from a women because it is HER body.

I have learnt that respect means respecting both men and women.

I learnt a lot from my life, don't be an asshole about the way I grew up and assume it means I should be super religious.

I don't believe that fetuses become human beings up until a certain point. it is really that simple and you are totally missing it. I think there is a large difference between an abortion carried out at 6 weeks and one done at 36 weeks because of the point in which the fetus becomes a human.

 

[*Minka*]

you support abortions for no reason up to 26 weeks? you realise babies are viable well before then right? usless peice of trivia for you: my grandmother was one of the earliest premature babies in the sourthern hemisphere when she was born.

So now your distinction of human is not just based on if they could live outside... so where do we draw the line? are we allowed to abort viable babies just because they may be an inconvenience on our life?

I am sure its just youth talking, or maybe you dont really have a soul, i dont know. Either way its hard for me to comprehend your justification of killing babies based on rights

Your a female, so lets play to that. Do you like the current trend in china of sex selective abortion? oh hey your baby is 26 weeks and could live outside the uterus now... but hey,,, oh wait...damn... its a girl. So like, you want me to abort now? (pulls out the massive brain needle and discharges the acid into babys brain)

Abortion, even at 8 weeks is immoral. I cant even comprehend the morality of third trimester abortions.

Most abortions are NOT late term abortions. Late term abortions generally only take place when there is a threat to the mothers life or in the case of fetal disabilities or defects. Most people don't just carry the pregnancy until 32 weeks and are like 'hey, i might get rid of it now I am 7 months pregnant'. The VAST MAJORITY of abortions take place in the first trimester shortly after the women finds out she is pregnant.

My mother can not abort me NOW because I am a human and it would be murder. However, she could have done so if it was her choosing at 6 weeks because I was not a human at that stage. That is the difference.

Sex Selective abortion is a product of culture and while I agree it is very tragic and sad that women are so undervalued in those societies, abortion remains a key right for women. The culture of China is what has led to this problem - the fact that they can onyl HAVE one child, that women become part of their husbands family after marrying, that it is a very rural society in parts and men are stronger and better able to assist on farms etc, tradtional prejusice against women. THAT is what needs to be addressed in China.

 

[Serius]

no matter how perfect a girl is, i am just wasting my time if she doesnt want kids later down the track.

Minka, whats the difference between you now and you when you were at 26 weeks? either way if your mother decided to abort you its murder.
You are the one who keeps bringing up the unlikely scenarios "but pregnancy CAN occur if shes on the pill, uses condom has an implant and no ovaries!" and the other more likely but still in the minority examples " what about rape, incest, medical complications!"
If you dont want to deal with my issues, fine we can deal with mainstream of cases which is simple

Girl gets pregnant through careless use of contraception.
Girl gets abortion at 8 weeks because she decides a baby will ruin her life. Father is no consulted.

It happens all the time, i think i remember the telegraph running a story a few years back about a woman who uses abortion as her contraception and has had 5 so far....as it is i cannot see an 8 week abortion being moral... i dont beleive life begins at conception like those diehard christians, but i dont think its moral to terminate a pregnancy after say a week or two.

Maybe we should start bringing in those hardcore pictures of aborted babies body parts sitting on a coin? when i saw those pics it basically made the issue more concrete in my mind. Abortion is murder.

 

[Serius]

I learnt that some loving god can not exist because if he did, he would not have sat back and watched the Yugoslavian Civil War and the astrociities that went on there. I also have no time for people using religious arguements against me because they mean bollocks. I have learnt that WAR is senseless, but WAR and ABORTION are two totally different things.

You should also note that in Yugoslavia, MANY women were raped by members of the arm, militia, gangs etc. They had no access to abortion, let alone decent health care (before my brother died, his leg was amputated with a CHAINSAW dammit) and psyocological help and were forced to carry rapists children. It MADE me see how hard carrying unwanted pregnancies is and why NO ONE should ever have the right tot ake that decision away from a women because it is HER body.

I have learnt that respect means respecting both men and women.
QUOTE]
as an aside i thought i might clear this up for you. You made a logical fallacy in your rejection of god based on the attrocitys made by humans. I can easily explain this[although i doubt you care]

You rejected god because you saw alot of bad shit with humans killing each other, women being raped, tortured whatever and thought " what kind of god would allow this to happen?" amirite?

God doesnt want to force us to do anything. He wants us to choose to beleive in him and love him because its the only way he can be sure we really do love him. Think about it, if his existance was a sure thing and he swung his mighty fist about the place there really wouldnt be a choice, it would be obvious he existed. IF this was obvious, then people would beleive in him wether they loved him or not.

So as soon as he inteferes its basically proof of his existance to us, taking away faith and choice. As a loving god, he cannot interfere because where does he draw the line? its hard to say.

the second problem with your logic is assuming he has to do something. If i see two hobos fighting and stabbing each other i dont have to do shit. If i tried to stop them and suceeded sure it would make me a good person but it doesnt make me a bad person [or an unloving person therefore i dont exist?] if i stand by and do nothing.
Humans fuck up the world all by themselves, they fight each other and kill and torture each other. Dont try and blame this on an outside force, because the reason he cant intefere is our fault in the first place. How childish to say that god should interfere and like "Deliver us from this evil" and shit.

there are many valid reasons to reject god. Lack of his action is not one of them.

i dont want to make this into another religion thread, but i thought i might as well explain this because i see alot of people making this illogical conclusion.