I am an atheist thread 4

[Ronald_E]

I am quite surprised that no-one has even attempted to answer the abortion argument that I made…

A, Sorry, I haven’t had time to think about what you stated nor look at it in depth. Sometimes I am invaded interpersonally and have to take care of that before I can relax and enjoy the exchange.
A, I am incompetent on the computer. Would you mind breaking down your response to my message on abortion and then I could respond to each quote of yours as they appear in order.
If you don’t want to that is ok.

 

[_A]

A, I am incompetent on the computer. Would you mind breaking down your response to my message on abortion and then I could respond to each quote of yours as they appear in order.
If you don’t want to that is ok.

I think it might be just as easy to start again. I will begin.

Why is it acceptable to you that a person (the fetus Catholics insist on disingenuously referring to as a person) to use another persons(this time the victim of pregnancy) organs against their will?

 

[Ronald_E]

I think it might be just as easy to start again. I will begin.

Why is it acceptable to you that a person (the fetus Catholics insist on disingenuously referring to as a person) to use another persons(this time the victim of pregnancy) organs against their will?

A, You are cracking me up with how you were able to make the small letters for the fetus.
I never thought of it as a person when I had been a catholic. I first thought of it as person in 1974 when a friend of mine asked me to take her to an abortion clinic to have an abortion. For about 3 years prior to that time I was reading Krishnamurti’s books, You Are The World, The Awakening of Intelligence, The First and Last Freedom, Freedom From the Known.
It was through reading his works that I began to see life beyond the obvious. One of his points that he made that hit home was when there is no division between the observer and the observed then truth can begin to be known.
Belief creates division. So I began to challenge all beliefs either imposed on me from the outside or imposed on me from my emotional reaction to the outside.
One thing that clearly came to me after my friend’s abortion was the change that came over her afterwards. She couldn’t or wouldn’t put it in to words until 20 years later.
What I began to realize is that life is sacred whether seen or not seen, understood or not understood. For us to exist the universe had to have a perfect storm. Everything in the universe exists to create us. The natural law creates life.
We all started as a clump of cells. I would fight for your right to exist if you were now a clump of cells even if you were not wanted by your mother. You have the natural right to live and you would live unless something or someone prevented you from living.
Thank you for your patience in starting over.

 

[_A]

A, You are cracking me up with how you were able to make the small letters for the fetus.

I am sure you could learn if you put your mind to it. to smaller the words, you just highlight what you want to smaller with the mouse (click-and-drag), then go to the controls in the top, select the dropdown that shows font size (my default is 2) and ‘smaller it up’.

Everything in the universe exists to create us.

So the over ten billion years before us was just setting the stage for us? That to me sounds like a giant leap of belief - and without suitable evidence.

We all started as a clump of cells. I would fight for your right to exist if you were now a clump of cells even if you were not wanted by your mother.

We are both *currently *a clump of cells.

You have the natural right to live and you would live unless something or someone prevented you from living.

This ‘right to live’ you speak of (I think it is more meaningless words, but let’s go with it)does it apply to the woman who wants her life for herself, and does not want to share it - even for nine months - with another person?

Thank you for your patience in starting over.

My pleasure. I will gladly help you learn things. Here is another.

If you want to quote someone, you can do it simply in the text box where you compose your message. You type the text you wanted to quote from them (or copy paste) and append it with
Oh, and you have to prefix the quote with

That can help you to quote parts if you want to.

So why is the blastocyst (or embryo, or person) not responsible to breath for itself? What gives it the right to be a parasite to an unwilling host?
The phrase ‘life is sacred’ is almost laughably meaningless. If life is sacred to you, why do you eat so much of it in a day? Is a virus sacred? Is a goat? What if you are really hungry?
If one clump of cells has the right to life, then so does the other. All they have to do is accept the responsibility of breathing, eating and other routine maintenance .
Just like any other life.

 

[Ronald_E]

I am sure you could learn if you put your mind to it. to smaller the words, you just highlight what you want to smaller with the mouse (click-and-drag), then go to the controls in the top, select the dropdown that shows font size (my default is 2) and ‘smaller it up’.So the over ten billion years before us was just setting the stage for us? That to me sounds like a giant leap of belief - and without suitable evidence. We are both *currently *a clump of cells. This ‘right to live’ you speak of (I think it is more meaningless words, but let’s go with it)does it apply to the woman who wants her life for herself, and does not want to share it - even for nine months - with another person?My pleasure. I will gladly help you learn things. Here is another.

If you want to quote someone, you can do it simply in the text box where you compose your message. You type the text you wanted to quote from them (or copy paste) and append it with

Oh, and you have to prefix the quote with

That can help you to quote parts if you want to.

So why is the blastocyst (or embryo, or person) not responsible to breath for itself? What gives it the right to be a parasite to an unwilling host?
The phrase ‘life is sacred’ is almost laughably meaningless. If life is sacred to you, why do you eat so much of it in a day? Is a virus sacred? Is a goat? What if you are really hungry?
If one clump of cells has the right to life, then so does the other. All they have to do is accept the responsibility of breathing, eating and other routine maintenance .
Just like any other life.

So why is the blastocyst not responsible to breath for itself? What give it the right to be a parasite to an unwilling host?

Well, at this level of existence nothing exists in isolation and we are related to everything in an interdependent way. Without the atmosphere there is no life. Life is dependent on the atmosphere. The atmosphere supports life unless we or some outside force disturbs the atmosphere. The mother is like the atmosphere for the life in her. She is an atmosphere that reacts to what is done to it just as our atmosphere that sustains us reacts to what happens to it. Depending on what we do to each atmosphere will determine its reaction. One atmosphere thinks and thinks it knows what it is doing. The other atmosphere responds to what is happening. I wonder if there is any difference or we think we are different because we think we are able to make choices or do the choices we make support the (name removed by moderator)ut we are receiving and thus give us the illusion that we are making choices when actually we are verbalizing our machine like response to processes that naturally take place.
A, this is cool because I never made the connection of a mother being analogous to our atmosphere… Anyway, the atmosphere can be treated in such a way that it easily supports life or it is treated in such a way that life begins to die off.
Let’s think about this more. It is getting late now.

 

[Ronald_E]

I did not get the quote thing right but I think I am getting closer. Have a good sleep.

 

[_A]

The mother is like the atmosphere for the life in her. She is an atmosphere that reacts to what is done to it just as our atmosphere that sustains us reacts to what happens to it.

No, she is an individual person with desires, rights and responsibilities. Dehumanizing her with metaphor is not making your case. I think it is a dodge. Have you any facts to support your notion that a fetus-human should be allowed to be a parasite on an unwilling host? Do you think the same rights should be extended to real, fully developed humans?

A, this is cool because I never made the connection of a mother being analogous to our atmosphere…

How about using an analogy that acknowledges her rights as a person?

 

[Pier]

No, she is an individual person with desires, rights and responsibilities. Dehumanizing her with metaphor is not making your case. I think it is a dodge.
Have you any facts to support your notion that a fetus-human should be allowed to be a parasite on an unwilling host?

Do you know what a uterus is, and what it’s for?

Do you think the same rights should be extended to real, fully developed humans?
How about using an analogy that acknowledges her rights as a person?

A woman has the right to say no to a man, which is also a right of the man, btw.

 

[Ronald_E]

No, she is an individual person with desires, rights and responsibilities. Dehumanizing her with metaphor is not making your case. I think it is a dodge. Have you any facts to support your notion that a fetus-human should be allowed to be a parasite on an unwilling host? Do you think the same rights should be extended to real, fully developed humans?
How about using an analogy that acknowledges her rights as a person?

A, I thought it was a good analogy I used. At least give me some credit for creative thought and don’t squash it without being amazed at the stretch it took to get there.
The constitution gives us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but not the right to stop someone else from pursuing the same. I do not dehumanize her, as you know and have seen I respect and admire women for what they bring to this world that can make us better men, if we can understand them better.
The clump of cells you refer to in the womb and the clump outside the womb as you have so sensitively referred to us have the same rights.
The child in the womb is dependent upon that environment for life and we are dependent upon this environment outside the womb for life. In each environment we did not choose to be here but we have the responsibility to care for the environment in order to maintain life.
I am using your motto to look at this from the universe perspective.
I want you to tell me about the unwilling host. What makes her an unwilling host? Look at how you demand facts from me to support my statements when your statements are not supported by facts. I am using my observational ability just like you. I believe the analogy I gave you fits and I think we can have a meaningful discussion here.
When a woman, generally speaking, has an abortion she appears to be in opposition to her basic biological nature. What causes this? I believe this is something that needs to be explored in depth. Will you do this with me?

 

[Ronald_E]

Pier, I would also appreciate any words from your perspective. Since I am talking from a male’s perspective I am sure I will leave out a lot of valuable information and also make mistakes.
Thanks.

 

[Pier]

Pier, I would also appreciate any words from your perspective. Since I am talking from a male’s perspective I am sure I will leave out a lot of valuable information and also make mistakes.
Thanks.

Hi Ronald,

I do appreciate your request. I can speak from the perspective of a life-long Catholic female, who found it most difficult getting men to take “No!” for an answer, in our current horrid culture that has embraced the adage, “If it feels good, do it”…

Not all, but most men, were not told that “No” is an actual, serious response. As a teen, I thought it was insulting that adults proclaimed that, “Most teens are going to do it, anyway.” That’s a disgusting assumption, but it helped caused laws to be passed and made birth control and abortion big booming businesses, funded by tax $$$…

Meanwhile, men from a very young age were not being taught the meaning of the word, “No,” and its consequences, which could sometimes mean a jail sentence - these things are not taught to the young, although they certainly should be. Respecting others is no longer vogue, although I do recall being taught in kindergarten to be respectful and keep my hands to myself - I guess it doesn’t apply to human beings when they get older…

Thank you for asking, Ronald. God bless you.

 

[_A]

Do you know what a uterus is, and what it’s for?

What does that have to do with it? If I need your kidney to keep on living, can I demand that you share it?

A woman has the right to say no to a man, which is also a right of the man, btw.

A woman, if she wishes to, will terminate her pregnancy. This has gone on far longer than your cult. Before medical advances made it clean and relatively harmless, women simply suicided instead.
It is a woman’s right to refuse to have a male enter her body, I agree. It is also her right to refuse to nurture a person, if she chooses not to.

A, I thought it was a good analogy I used. At least give me some credit for creative thought and don’t squash it without being amazed at the stretch it took to get there.

I don’t like it because it does not acknowledge her personhood.

The constitution gives us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but not the right to stop someone else from pursuing the same.

So why then do you think that an embryo has the right to stop a woman from pursuing her happiness?

I do not dehumanize her, as you know and have seen I respect and admire women for what they bring to this world that can make us better men, if we can understand them better.

If you think abortion should not be allowed, you suggest enslaving women.
That is not respect, except if you mean the kind of respect a rancher has for his cattle.

The clump of cells you refer to in the womb and the clump outside the womb as you have so sensitively referred to us have the same rights.

Glad you agree. That means that if a woman decides that she would be happier with the blastocyst **out **of her body, it is perfectly OK for her to have it removed.

The child in the womb is dependent upon that environment for life and we are dependent upon this environment outside the womb for life.

The child in the womb is dependent on one specific person for life. If she doesn’t wish to give it, then her right to owning her own body says it has to get out. Perhaps you could have the embryo implanted in a person who wanted to save it, but you can’t defend giving a person the right to enslave another.

In each environment we did not choose to be here but we have the responsibility to care for the environment in order to maintain life.

A woman is a person. Keep saying it, you seem to think she is an atmosphere, or an environment. She is a person with at least the same rights as the embryo (I would say more, but no matter).

I am using your motto to look at this from the universe perspective.

It is not my motto, it is my signature, and a brief lesson to anyone who thinks the bible is a better authority than the observed universe.

I want you to tell me about the unwilling host. What makes her an unwilling host?

If she says that she is unwilling, she is unwilling.
It is really quite simple when you start looking at women as persons.

Look at how you demand facts from me to support my statements when your statements are not supported by facts.

Where has this been the case?

I am using my observational ability just like you. I believe the analogy I gave you fits and I think we can have a meaningful discussion here.

When you realize that women are people with rights, we can get a lot further.

When a woman, generally speaking, has an abortion she appears to be in opposition to her basic biological nature.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘biological nature’, but it sounds like you are going to say she is made for making babies. She is a person, just like you are.

What causes this? I believe this is something that needs to be explored in depth. Will you do this with me?

If you can stop treating women as other than persons, perhaps.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Hello AoG

I became interested last fall when my brother and family went to a ghost hunt, etc.
I thought i would try it and sure enough, their are voices on my digital recorder that should not be there.
I have recorded a few interesting ones. I have no idea why the voices are on there or what generates them but it is fascinating.
Thanks for your reply.

les

Hi Les,

Hmm, a ghost hunt? I did not know that such a thing was a common event…or is it?

Did you get a kind of creepy feeling when you listened to the recording? I will say, I am a skeptic. Back in the days when I listened to Art Bell every now and then (I couldn’t help it…my folks had him on when I was visiting), I thought “Huh? Whatever.” when I heard the recordings. I really couldn’t make out what the voices were saying.

When I went to do some “research” to answer your initial question, it was the same with the samples I found on the internet. I really had to stretch my imagination to try to hear what the captions explained was being said.

Did you actually make out clear words on your recording?

I guess I can see why people would be interested in the whole EVP thing. It is mysterious, and there are a lot of unexplainable things that go on in life. Also, some people are really anxious to have some kind of connection to those loved ones who have passed away.

 

[_A]

I guess I can see why people would be interested in the whole EVP thing. It is mysterious, and there are a lot of unexplainable things that go on in life. Also, some people are really anxious to have some kind of connection to those loved ones who have passed away.

I think that is the same reason that so many people are ready to believe in an afterlife with no reasonable evidence.

This EVP thing I had heard a little about, but it has never impressed me as something supernatural. If you listen carefully enough, you can hear anything you want to. If you repeat over and over ‘there are voices in there’ you will hear voices. If you repeatedly talk to a god, you will start to hear that, too.

 

[Ronald_E]

What does that have to do with it? If I need your kidney to keep on living, can I demand that you share it?A woman, if she wishes to, will terminate her pregnancy. This has gone on far longer than your cult. Before medical advances made it clean and relatively harmless, women simply suicided instead.
It is a woman’s right to refuse to have a male enter her body, I agree. It is also her right to refuse to nurture a person, if she chooses not to.

When you state that it is a woman’s right to refuse to nurture a person you are wrong. It is a choice based on her emotional reaction and her value system in response to the environment she lives in.

I don’t like it because it does not acknowledge her personhood. o why then do you think that an embryo has the right to stop a woman from pursuing her happiness? If you think abortion should not be allowed, you suggest enslaving women.
That is not respect, except if you mean the kind of respect a rancher has for his cattle. Glad you agree. That means that if a woman decides that she would be happier with the blastocyst **out **of her body, it is perfectly OK for her to have it removed. The child in the womb is dependent on one specific person for life. If she doesn’t wish to give it, then her right to owning her own body says it has to get out. Perhaps you could have the embryo implanted in a person who wanted to save it, but you can’t defend giving a person the right to enslave another. A woman is a person. Keep saying it, you seem to think she is an atmosphere, or an environment. She is a person with at least the same rights as the embryo (I would say more, but no matter). It is not my motto, it is my signature, and a brief lesson to anyone who thinks the bible is a better authority than the observed universe. If she says that she is unwilling, she is unwilling.
It is really quite simple when you start looking at women as persons. Where has this been the case? When you realize that women are people with rights, we can get a lot further. I don’t know what you mean by ‘biological nature’, but it sounds like you are going to say she is made for making babies. She is a person, just like you are. If you can stop treating women as other than persons, perhaps.

I think I honor women when I understand them first as human beings who have a special purpose in life based on their ability to bring life into the world.
So let’s start from the cellular level. All human beings have 2 genomes. The first is the DNA in chromosomes. The second is the DNA in mitochondria which is much smaller and did not get much press when it was discovered in '81. Mitochondria are minute and there are hundreds of them in each cell in our bodies. They take in oxygen and release energy that sustains life. They replicate independent of the rest of the cell, without using its DNA. They have their own genome that is composed of less than 50 genes. Sperm cells are basically absent of mitochondria so almost all of a child’s mitochondria come from the mother’s egg.
At the cellular level it is women who sustain life and organize that life into a form we see as human.
I honor women by understanding how they are first and foremost the reason I am here and without their nurturing I am dead. It is extremely important to investigate what influences them to reject their primary biological nature. They do not have abortions in a vacuum.

 

[_A]

I think I honor women when I understand them first as human beings who have a special purpose in life based on their ability to bring life into the world.
So let’s start from the cellular level. All human beings have 2 genomes. The first is the DNA in chromosomes. The second is the DNA in mitochondria which is much smaller and did not get much press when it was discovered in '81. Mitochondria are minute and there are hundreds of them in each cell in our bodies. They take in oxygen and release energy that sustains life. They replicate independent of the rest of the cell, without using its DNA. They have their own genome that is composed of less than 50 genes. Sperm cells are basically absent of mitochondria so almost all of a child’s mitochondria come from the mother’s egg.
At the cellular level it is women who sustain life and organize that life into a form we see as human.
I honor women by understanding how they are first and foremost the reason I am here and without their nurturing I am dead. It is extremely important to investigate what influences them to reject their primary biological nature. They do not have abortions in a vacuum.

How many women have you known to give birth without a man? Men bring life into this world as surely as women do.
Why does one person have the right to use anothers’ organs and others don’t? You still have not addressed that question. I don’t think you can, which is why you keep diverting the topic to how women are not quite as human as men (or vice-versa). Women are life-givers? Then men are too. As are bacteria, the sun and the avian flu.
Kind of meaningless.

 

[Ronald_E]

How many women have you known to give birth without a man? Men bring life into this world as surely as women do.
Why does one person have the right to use anothers’ organs and others don’t? You still have not addressed that question. I don’t think you can, which is why you keep diverting the topic to how women are not quite as human as men (or vice-versa). Women are life-givers? Then men are too. As are bacteria, the sun and the avian flu.
Kind of meaningless.

A, you seem so intense. I am giving you more information as a foundation from which to understand my statements but you react like others that do not look at a fuller picture and then dismiss what forms my thoughts. I am disappointed. I thought you would see what I am forming.
We are interdependent on one another for survival. A child being formed in the womb is totally dependent on the mother for survival. That child has no choice. If we as human beings do not care for that child in essence we are not thinking rational human beings that create and support life. Did you know that the communist party promoted abortion as a way of destroying family unity because they knew that a strong family was the source of a strong society that would potentially threaten communism. In Poland the communists would force families to live in smaller quarters and have the parents work different shifts in order to weaken family bonds and have members of those families experience one another in a state of distress which then would weaken that strong bond that creates solidarity.
Those who are most vulnerable need our support for life. The child in the womb is the most vulnerable and has no voice. The mother carrying the child needs to know that we as a society will provide for her care whatever she needs in order to experience that child as a gift rather than a burden.

 

[_A]

A, you seem so intense. I am giving you more information as a foundation from which to understand my statements but you react like others that do not look at a fuller picture and then dismiss what forms my thoughts. I am disappointed. I thought you would see what I am forming.

You keep talking around my point - do you have anything to address it, or just your comparison of women to non-human things?

We are interdependent on one another for survival. A child being formed in the womb is totally dependent on the mother for survival. That child has no choice. If we as human beings do not care for that child in essence we are not thinking rational human beings that create and support life.

You are making what is known as a baseless assertion here. People who get abortions are just like everyone else - just as rational and just as supportive.

Did you know that the communist party promoted abortion as a way of destroying family unity because they knew that a strong family was the source of a strong society that would potentially threaten communism.

Do you have supporting evidence for this?

In Poland the communists would force families to live in smaller quarters and have the parents work different shifts in order to weaken family bonds and have members of those families experience one another in a state of distress which then would weaken that strong bond that creates solidarity.

So what does this have to do with my main point? Are you afraid to address it?

Those who are most vulnerable need our support for life.

|Who decides who is ‘most vulnerable’? I think the woman who was raped and is being pressured to nurture her rapists spawn against her will is the most vulnerable.

The child in the womb is the most vulnerable and has no voice.

It also has no independence. If it can not breathe on it’s own, and the person it is attached to doesn’t want to give up her life for it, then it has no ‘right to life’.

The mother carrying the child needs to know that we as a society will provide for her care whatever she needs in order to experience that child as a gift rather than a burden.

If you want to rescue the aborted fetuses, I have no problem with that, but you have not justified making a slave of the mother.
If my kidney fails, I would be very vulnerable. I guess I can just order you to share yours, according to your fuzzy logic.
Just because someone is vulnerable is no reason to force a woman into slavery. That you would try to suggest it shows that you have no reasonable argument. When someone is starving, they do not have the right to steal your food, so why does this embryo, which is not yet a person, get the right to steal food from it’s host?
I understand if you can’t answer it - Catholics use emotive language and a ridiculous belief in a god to justify their position. It does not stand up to reason.

 

[Ronald_E]

You keep talking around my point - do you have anything to address it, or just your comparison of women to non-human things?
You are making what is known as a baseless assertion here. People who get abortions are just like everyone else - just as rational and just as supportive. Do you have supporting evidence for this?So what does this have to do with my main point? Are you afraid to address it?|Who decides who is ‘most vulnerable’? I think the woman who was raped and is being pressured to nurture her rapists spawn against her will is the most vulnerable.It also has no independence. If it can not breathe on it’s own, and the person it is attached to doesn’t want to give up her life for it, then it has no ‘right to life’. If you want to rescue the aborted fetuses, I have no problem with that, but you have not justified making a slave of the mother.
If my kidney fails, I would be very vulnerable. I guess I can just order you to share yours, according to your fuzzy logic.
Just because someone is vulnerable is no reason to force a woman into slavery. That you would try to suggest it shows that you have no reasonable argument. When someone is starving, they do not have the right to steal your food, so why does this embryo, which is not yet a person, get the right to steal food from it’s host?
I understand if you can’t answer it - Catholics use emotive language and a ridiculous belief in a god to justify their position. It does not stand up to reason.

Actually A, if you take a look at your language you will see a lot of emotion if you are honest with yourself. The arguments you make are not logical and are based on resistance to a logical process of deduction. A child in the womb does not compare to a person outside the womb who wants something from someone else.
What you also do is take my points out of context and highlight them to defend your point.
If someone is starving my responsibility is to feed them.
Intelligence without a prior belief about a fetus can only conclude what I have stated about the fetus being human. Did you know that abortion was started by a white woman back in the 40’s as a way of preventing the black race from becoming too populated.
I know you are going to ask me for a reference. I do not have it, but you can look up the history of abortion on the internet.
Your belief that the unborn child is a parasite is extremely emotionally charged with resistance and I think you should look into this because it really distorts your perception. I say this out of deep respect for you because I enjoy this little bit of time to discuss these topics.
Truth can only be known when there is no difference between the observer and the observed. Prove to me that the clump of cells is not human when it contains all the DNA that we contain

 

[teri74]

Just because someone is vulnerable is no reason to force a woman into slavery. That you would try to suggest it shows that you have no reasonable argument. When someone is starving, they do not have the right to steal your food, so why does this embryo, which is not yet a person, get the right to steal food from it’s host?
I understand if you can’t answer it - Catholics use emotive language and a ridiculous belief in a god to justify their position. It does not stand up to reason.

A—
Honestly, I don’t want to enter into this conversation because in my opinion there will be no end to it and I would rather be involved in discussions where there is more comfort in the understanding of differing opinions. I just want to make two small points from my perspective.

As a mother, if my child were starving, I would do absolutely ANYTHING, including steal to feed her/him. Now, please don’t get all spun up and read something into this statement that isn’t there. The only point here is that life isn’t as cut and dried and you are trying to make it. In the extreme situations as discribed above, and in all decisions of importance made in life, personalities, feelings, and emotions creep in. I really can’t think of anything in life that can be neatly put into a box, except a gift that is wrapped.

As to your statement about Catholics using “their emotive language and a ridiculous belief in a god to justify their position” you have now put Catholics in a box. I am not a Catholic, and am an emotional person. Most people that I know use how the feel about things, what their emotions are about issues to justify their point. You seem pretty good at doing the same thing. I think you are very good expressing yourself and I read what you say intently. I don’t always agree, but sometimes I do. However, if I don’t agree with you, I don’t think to myself, “what he has to say is just rediculous, must be because he is an athiest.”

Ok…fire away…I will answer, but I can’t set at my computer for long due to pain.

It’s a beautiful Friday here…hope it is where you are!!

Teri