Unplanned to expose the truth about PP
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A pro-life movie that is coming out next year is anticipated to destroy all the myths about abortion spread by left-wing media.
The film is titled, Unplanned: the Abby Johnson Story .
Johnson worked as the director of a Planned Parenthood in the Bryan/College Station area to the northwest of Houston, Texas, for about eight years – doing so because she wanted to help women.
Cary Solomon – the writer, director and producer of the movie – says that Johnson did not do abortions until they were shorthanded one day.
“In her own words, she said I'd done a lot of ultrasounds, but I had never seen a baby so completely as I did that day – hands moving, eyes, you know, everything … legs,” Solomon shared. “The baby was alive, and then suddenly, I saw the catheter entered into the woman's uterus to basically remove the baby, and the baby tried to escape.”
Needless to say, the escape was unsuccessfully. A tiny human being was denied life.
It was then that Johnson realized she had been the supervisor over the termination of 22,000 babies during her tenure. She subsequently resigned and joined the pro-life movement .
Solomon explained that Unplanned is a pro-life movie, but noted that it was not done in a fashion to condemn women who have experienced abortion.
“For women that have not had abortions or children or young girls that are considering it, we want them to realize that this is a baby,” the pro-life director asserted. “You have to contemplate that. You cannot buy into the myth of the media and of Planned Parenthood that it's not a baby.”
Already, Solomon's crew is working on opening the movie in as many theaters nationwide as possible, and so far, 500 have expressed interest.
Unplanned is slated to make its debut in March.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
46 visitors
“It was then that Johnson realized she had been the supervisor over the termination of 22,000 babies during her tenure. She subsequently resigned and joined the pro-life movement.
Solomon explained that Unplanned is a pro-life movie, but noted that it was not done in a fashion to condemn women who have experienced abortion.
“For women that have not had abortions or children or young girls that are considering it, we want them to realize that this is a baby,” the pro-life director asserted. “You have to contemplate that. You cannot buy into the myth of the media and of Planned Parenthood that it's not a baby.””
You want them to imagine a newly fertilized egg is "a baby". You want them to imagine a kidney bean sized zygote is "a baby". Why? It's not your newly fertilized egg. It's not your body the newly fertilized egg is in. The myth is that there is some invisible magical immortal "soul" created at conception. The myth is that supposedly "pro-life" people are actually pro-life. Their desire to get involved with another persons life to save what they imagine is a baby only applies until it's born. Once the child's out the taboo "forbidden Zone", they can't get away fast enough taking their wallets with them, they just can't afford to stay and help out every hungry mouth.
"A tiny human being was denied life."
The fact it it's not a "tiny human", it's a potential human, but so is a sperm. Are you going to lock up every 13 year old boy going through puberty? And just because it's merged with a cell doesn't instantly make it a human, it's still just a potential human. The law in our country has ruled that it is only a potential human up to viability and therefore it is legal to terminate a pregnancy before that point. I have potential to be an airline pilot, but I've never flown a plane before, am I a pilot? I have the potential to be President of the United States, I meet all the legal requirements, does that mean I'm the President and the secret service should risk their lives to protect mine? Of course not, because just because you have the "potential" to be something doesn't make you that something. A newly fertilized egg isn't a human, a zygote isn't a human, an embryo isn't a human and a fetus isn't a human. To be human, according to our laws, you have to be able to live outside the womb no longer attached to the mother. That is the current definition of viability in our current law.
The sperm without the egg is not a person and vice versa. Combine them and they become human. What the woman portrayed in the movie saw was a real human baby being killed and it caused her to get out of the hell hole that is planned Parenthood and come over to the right side. I can’t wait to watch the movie.
All very true... The vast majority of this issue is is all about control. They just don't want women making decisions about their own bodies with a males say so. It's still that, "male go out and gather food, woman stay home and cook it and drop as many calves as possible" attitude.
So, forced major surgery for women?
You're paying, right? And supporting her both physically and financially while she recovers? And paying for medical care for the preemie, who is likely to need a lot of it?
Neither is a clump of cells.
No, they become a zygote-a single undifferentiated cell. Basic embryology.
No, what she saw was a fetus. She just happened to also get emotional about it.
But only if they're past the point of viability and usually with medical intervention.
92% of all abortions occur at or before 12 weeks. The earliest a premature fetus has survived outside the womb was 21 weeks. The reality is the so called "late term" abortions occur relatively rarely and are almost always used only to save the life of the mother. There just aren't a lot of perspective moms waiting until they're bellies are distended and the baby's nearly fully formed before deciding to terminate. The ones who are at that stage are planning to have the child and it's almost always some major health issue with either the mother or the baby that prompts the decision to terminate in those cases.
Your silly ideas would create a very common scenario of a woman being charged with manslaughter because she has a spontaneous miscarriage before the end of the 1st trimester. That happens about 20% of the time. Is that your idea of a small govenment.
Go pound sand because of another emotional idea because in religious BS. Until someone is forced to have an abortion against their will or someone is forced to work at PP then you have nothing to complain about.
No fetus is about to survive outside the womb at the current 23 week limit for voluntary abortion.
prove it wally
She saw a young human baby. That is what he/she was before their execution at the hands of the abortionist. This movie is going to show that it’s not a clump of cells but a real human baby being killed by an abortion.
And I see bunnies in the clouds.
Those looked like kitties to me.
Those are bunnies.
Just like the debunked silent scream...MORE bs
Was a lie and she got busted lying. It's only the easily led now that perpetuates the lie.
You asked me in another seed...I'll let you answer it yourself.
Does a true patriot perpetuate a lie to their fellow Americans?
Pp said she was lying, the doctor said she is lying and the state of Texas has confirmed she lied.
But a so called "true patriot" has ignored this fact, and is promoting a lie to their fellow Americans.
Americans shouldn't lie to other Americans ...especially one who professes to be a christian as well.
Put yourself outside that situation...would you really think to believe that person to be Christian and a Patriotic American if they deceive other Americans on a regular basis?
No,no,no.....here's the kicker..she didn't see any of that. It's all bullshit. She never assisted on an abortion, there's no record of an abortion of 13 weeks done then and the State of Texas said there were no reports of that.or any 13 week termination then
Lies lies lies
Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
I've noticed pro-lifers are not above lying when it comes to their anti-abortion agenda. They tend to ignore facts in favor of either lies and/or emotional appeals. For example, this was perhaps best exemplified by the whole "baby parts" video fiasco a few years back.
it's all about control and imposing their religious views on everyone else, period. Their god causes more abortions and has taken away more human life than any one human could ever imagine doing themselves - yet that's ok. They don't want people having control over their own lives nor their own bodies (for women), they want everyone controlled through the lens of their belief in their god.
This environmental scientist is already seeing the depredations of overpopulation.
It has the potential to be a human baby.
But so the fuck what? How is it any of your business? Are you going to volunteer to carry the fetus for 40 weeks and suffer all the garbage that goes with pregnancy? Somehow I doubt it.
When a human being is murdered just for the convenience of another person, it becomes everyone's business. If a fetus has a separate genetic pattern from its parents, it is a human being.
Neither can a very old person or someone who has had a stroke. Perhaps we should think of just killing them too. So much cheaper and more convenient than taking care of them.
Probably should consider softening your allegation. Claiming that Trout does not give a shit about human life goes light years beyond what she has explained to you.
An apology is in order IMO.
Why do you think that a woman's decision to have an abortion is "just for convenience"?
Do you think that a woman doesn't consider her own physical, mental and financial health in the decision?
Even when there's a sperm, egg, and zygote, it's still not a baby.
"Will be," future tense, as in it is not YET a baby. An acorn is not yet a tree.
Spare us your ad hom attack and emotional platitude.
That's a somewhat libelous statement.
There is no murder being committed, as abortion is not murder. Neither is there a human being being murdered. And no, another person's personal/medical decisions are NOT your nor anyone else's business, no matter how much you sanctimoniously want to believe otherwise!
Sounds more like a parasite then.
I'm all for assisted suicide or withdrawal of care. But then, like the abortion choice, that is not my decision nor is it my place to say what another person can or cannot do.
I care about human life....when it's breathing on its own.
You've never carried a child to term, so why don't you go blather your bullshit to somebody who gives a flying fuck
That is cherrypicking to present a distorted view of the sentiment.
Yes, I agree that we have different standards compared to the pro abortion side.
I sleep just fine, thank you. But your apparent dismissal only reinforces my statement.
Weird that no one was arrested for murder. Oh wait, that's because it wasn't murder.
The SCOTUS ruled that a fetus has no rights. Deal with it.
A fetus cannot talk, walk, breathe on it's own, vote, go shopping, balance the household budget, drive a car, get married, smoke, make pancakes or a whole host of other things an actual human can do... A fetus is a parasite, (by definition), it requires a host to survive. The right screams that they are for more individual freedoms, just not for women.
1) Even the bible says that life begins at first breath, not at the moment of conception.
2) God is the ultimate abortionist.
Why is it that the right wants to force women to have a child, but then votes to cut;
Health care for the poor
Education for the poor
Shelter for the poor
Food for the poor
Doesn't sound to me like they give two shits about these babies they want to make sure are born at any cost.
.....
It never ceases to amaze me that some of these turds feel that the woman carrying the fetus should have rights SECONDARY to the fetus she is carrying. That's some of the most backward fucked up logic I have ever heard of.
3%.....that's how much of PP is devoted to doing abortions and the right wants to see them all shut down? That's a bit like buying a new Mercedes and taking it to the junk yard the next day because it has a flat tire.
Yep. Weird that far right wingers care for fetuses more than they care for babies and their mothers.
That concern for the fetus ends as soon as it is outside of the mother's body. This isn't about being pro-life. It's about being forced birth and controlling the life decisions of others as a way to maintain patriarchal control over society. They want to force women to carry a pregnancy to term and then claim that it is entirely her job to raise it without public assistance because she chose to get pregnant. If she wants to have an abortion or take RU486 then it is very likely that she didn't choose to get pregnant but you cannot convince a person who believes that their god talks to them to accept reality.
FAKE NEWS
She lied and so many on the right brought biscuits to sop it up.
Like shooting fish in a barrel
Just another lying made up story
Many ordinary people when they see the process of abortion first hand realize that it really is a baby that is being killed and become pro life at that point. This movie is in fact documenting a true story of a real person that used to work for PP until she saw first hand what an abortion does, kill a human baby.
It is NOT a baby, it is a fetus and this movie is more BS from a liar who was fired from her job, who NEVER witnessed shit because it didn't happen.
And most reasonable people have at least a passing knowledge of embryology and know it's not a baby, but rather an embryo/fetus.
It's not a baby until it's born. So if the documentary says it's a baby, then it's a lie.
even planned parenthood disagrees with that.
A basic answer like, “ Babies grow in a mom’s belly, and then come out of her vagina,” might be enough information for them.
Good grief. You want to cite information meant for preschoolers as a source for proper terminology regarding embryology?
embryology is about the start of the "life cycle"
abortion is the end of that "life cycle" regardless if one uses the term zygot or baby.
saying someone is not alive until they are born is pure BS
We're talking terminology here. Do you generally look for precise biological terminology in sources aimed at the under-five crowd?
Maybe NASA should be using "Newtonion Physics for the Nursery" for their next mission.
I use scientifically accurate terms, not preschool level terminology or explanations. In utero, it's not a baby. It's a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus.. Calling it a "baby" is not only inaccurate, it's also false or a lie, meant to emotionally appeal to those who do not know any better or are otherwise easily swayed by emotion.
regardless of what you want to call it..... it is alive.
and abortion kills life.
dehumanizing life makes it easier to kill
end of discussion.
So does amoxicillin.
Nobody is arguing over whether it's alive. It does not have the rights superseding those of the woman carrying it.
it is "human life" and abortion is the taking of human life.
never said it did.
if that zygot - fetus - baby (whatever one calls it) threatens the health/life of the mother I have no problem with abortion.
You must be all for forced organ donation, then, bodily autonomy being a meaningless concept and all.
Human lives end due to lack of available kidneys and livers pretty frequently.
Used to live on Colfax within walking distance of Mile High during the Elway days and tailgated every week. Now live in KC and my Chiefs are kicking ass! Seriously enjoy tailgating KC BBQ style.
I call it what it is.
So? Whether it's alive or not is not really the issue here.
By that logic, taking antibiotics is akin to abortion.
Emotional rhetoric.
Good. You didn't have much of a discussion to offer anyway.
Not yet it's not.
More emotional rhetoric. By that *ahem* logic, skin cells are also "human life" and I'm aborting them everytime I scratch some off my @ss.
Some of us will call it for what it is. But it's not a baby until birth-simple fact!
Whether you have a problem with abortion or not for whatever reason is irrelevant, as it's none of your business if anyone wants an abortion for whatever reason. Don't like abortion? Then don't have one! As you say, end of discussion!
the fact it is a human life is the ONLY issue here.
ya see... some people do not treat humans as cattle,
those people do not care what term is used to describe human life be it zygot or baby.
funny thing about laws.
all my life weed was illegal... now not so much.
im fairly certain the question of when the taking of a humans life is OK, is much bigger than the question of when smoking a doobie is OK. and therefore subject to change over time as well.
ok, which human life - the potential human or the already existing human woman (Mother) who's carrying that potential human ? no issues with the already existing human woman having rights to medical decisions concerning her own body and the potential human inside of it ?
very true - i don't see women as breeding cattle nor breeding mares and don't treat them that way either. but some people certainly do treat women that way and wish to enforce it legally it seems.
it's odd that they don't care about science nor facts, but that's their choice
which human life is ok to take ? the potential human life or the already existing human life inside of the Mother carrying it ? is it considered the "taking of a human life" when miscarriages happen since the Mother's human body effectively aborted the potential human inside of it ? so many questions..... and a very complex and complicated subject.... also seems to be more than just "human life" as the issue...
if you follow the whole conversation from top to bottom I was very clear on that issue.
cheers and happy new year
i'm well aware since i read it before i replied - thusly my reply .
cheers and happy new year
I’m going to spend most of the rest of the evening with family and friends and only be here briefly from time to time between now and midnight or so pacific time. So let’s bring in the new year by continuing in a civil discussion.
nothing uncivil about it so far, why would you think otherwise ? is wishing someone a Happy New Year considered uncivil ?
Why are you being uncivil now? Do you have to argue with me no matter what I say? Did you miss the word continue? Do you have a clue what that might mean? It means I said to continue to be civil, which implies it was, at least until you came along. Why would you presume that wishing someone a happy new year would be uncivil in my opinion?
No, it's not, despite your attempt to make it so.
But some seem to prefer women to be breeding mares by trying to limit or prohibit abortion.
It seems you don't know what the correct term is, despite being told what it is.
There was never any logical reason to make weed illegal. But that is otherwise a Red herring.
There is no question. Taking human life is not ok, except for self defense. But a zygote/embryo/fetus is not yet human and abortion is generally ok up to the point of viability.
The difference is, abortion is considered a right and rights are not subject to legal change or removal. Neither has there ever been such an instance of a right being revoked by the courts once it has been granted or recognized.
yes, it is, despite your attempt to say it is not.
another interesting fact...
you can not tell other people what is important to them.
write this down for future reference
so is the right to bear arms but the left is constantly trying to change that.
how about background checks and safety courses before an abortion?
regulate clinics out of existence or make abortions too expensive to use.
like the left tries to do with guns and bullets
maybe we start there
I was only being facetious above
but... ya know.... I do think it is time for some common sense abortion laws
mandatory ultrasound of the fetus/baby while the doctor explains the procedure and other options in full.
the supreme court will have no problem with an "informed patient"
and let's get the supreme court to decide if just one foot/toe is still in the birth canal.... partial-birth abortion... look it up.
does that mean it is a fetus? or a human baby with rights? (there is potential legal movement here)
but of course, all this will take time, and will have to start with a public awareness campaign like the movie we are talking about.
and after watching the left for decades, I reckon all we have to do is...
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it, and then normalize it over time.
cheers
No, it's not. No matter what you might think otherwise.
Irrelevant. What someone considers important is subjective and doesn't change the fact that abortion is a right and none of your business where another's choice is concerned.
Maybe you can start with something other than strawman arguments.
How is that common sense? It's unnecessary and clearly an attempt to emotionally sway a woman's decision.
Another strawman. Partial birth abortions are generally not allowed except in cases of medical necessity. At a late stage of gestation, a C-section would more likely be performed.
Until it's born, it's a fetus.
So you mean lie? Got it.
Good points well made!
The movie is the true story of a real person that used to work for the evil PP who found out what abortion really does and as a result switched to the good side.
I see you didn't address post 1.1.17 questioning the credibility of this so called movie.
No the movie is bs since this woman never witnessed what she claimed to witness unless the Texas Health Department lied
you wrote this:
which in English states the discussion was no longer civil with my comment (or else you wouldn't have replied to specifically me) and you wish for me to continue commenting, but only in a "civil" discussion since apparently you didn't consider it "civil" with my comment.
exactly - you are stating that i was not civil, which is why i wrote:
would you mind answering the questions instead of trying to dodge them ? Thanks
i don't think it is uncivil - but apparently you do which is why i'm asking the question.
Have you had an abortion? If not then you have no idea what happens in the clinic offices. Ultrasounds make no sense since women tend to know that when they are pregnant they are developing a life. Doctors in the clinics go over the procedure in detail and there are therapists/counselors on hand to go over ALL the options a woman has at her disposal.
I am sick to death of people thinking that women have no clue as to what being pregnant means and that run to clinics to terminate with no facts and on a whim.
The mandatory ultrasounds people insist on are not the non-invasive ultrasounds they're thinking of. I don't think they realize that the mandatory ultrasounds they are insisting upon are the internal ultrasounds where a friggin probe is shoved up a woman's twat and moved around to get the images.
Now that's rape.
Yea, but they would say it is what she deserved...
I had an ultrasound a few years back at my Gyn. because of extremely heavy periods (thank god that bloody mess is in the past) and I had no idea what an ultrasound involved.
That ultrasound wand is bigger than any dick that I have encountered and you're right, it is rape.
That is messed up thinking
I've seen them and those probes are scary as hell. I've been fortunate to not ever have to endure that particular form of torture.
Geeze, Tessy, I'm sorry
You and I both have come across people that truly believe that. It is messed up, but we both know it is thought by some. I never knew people believed such horrible things until I was told on the "other" forum that it would be better if my daughter died during a pregnancy rather than terminate because she wasn't innocent and the "baby" was. It sickens me to think that in the 21st century some people still see women as brood mares, evil "Eves", temptresses, and unless pregnant or a mother completely useless to society.
awww....shucks
One has nothing to do with the other. Roe v Wade is not going anywhere.
No life is being terminated so mind your business! Get to stepping dude! Shoo!
complete and utter BS....
embryology is the study of the stages in the beginning of the human life cycle
the science is clear... kill an embryo = kill a human life.
you first
As usual you are wrong surfer dude
Embryology is the field of biology that studies the development (and gestation) of the embryo and fetus. That study can be applied to any animal species, including humans. But the issue isn't really whether it's deemed "life" or not.
Not quite. Kill an embryo means kill an embryo. It has not yet become a "human life." Otherwise, your entire comment sounds rather emotionally charged or motivated.
no matter how ya spin things... terminating any life cycle is terminating life.
regardless if it is human, animal, or plant life.
you don't have to care which life is which...
but you don't get to tell other people how to think or what they care about either.
No spin. Just simple fact.
So? Is that supposed to mean anything? Or is that just some attempt at an appeal to emotion?
I've done no such thing.
'Needless to say, the escape was unsuccessfully.' What dimwitted moron wrote this piece? It should be 'unsuccessful'.
This is very poorly written and I doubt the veracity of the contents. In other words FAKE NEWS. Made up bullshit is more like it.
No 'babies' are being terminated or being denied life.
Human life scientifically begins at conception. Conception is the beginning point in the life of every human. Ending life via an abortion is the taking of the life of an innocent human being. From conception forward we are human and there is no potential for any other living outcome. Only death by miscarriage, disease/deformation or an abortion can stop that development of us humans before we are born.
Correct. The zygote is indeed a life form and is human.
That now is not a scientific statement. You are jumping from human life form to 'human being' (as in person). Abortion kills a human life form. The question now is if this human life form has developed to the stage of 'human being' (aka person).
Correct, no question that a fertilized egg is human.
Death (regardless of method) ends life. So yes, if a fertilized egg does not die in the process it will become a human being.
That is an emotionally based conservative religious belief that is not supported by all religions, medical science, or the courts.
Do you remember what this seeded article is about? Just to remind everyone, it’s the Abby Johnson story of her transformation from working for abortionists at the evil Planned Parenthood to upon seeing the baby exterminated by an abortion procedure deciding it wasn’t for her anymore and her within a couple weeks resigning and joining the pro life movement. Only two more months until we can watch it. Oh, and the star of the movie was herself almost aborted. Her mom went to a clinic and then changed her mind at the last minute. I can see why she wanted to portray Abby Johnson.
"The sperm without an egg...…………………………" And more stupid life hating right wing fetus worship bullcrap. KAG? This drivel have a point?
Want to have a kid? Have the damn thing.
Don't want a kid? Don't.
Raising children has nothing to do and is not the business of the 'want to stick a cross up your arse' folk.
Well I actually do take care of kids others wouldn’t or couldn’t and I’ll continue to do so as long as my health allows.
Good for you. Ante up.
You may have a cookie.
White chocolate macadamia please
sure to be a cinematic blockbuster among hypocritical scumbags that can't mind their own fucking business
Not your uterus, NOT your decision.
What kind of father doesn’t love and protect his child in its developmental stages? If I create a living fetus I definitely feel I should be a participant in decisions regarding the health and well-being of the fetus. How can one say it is half yours but you have no say in the care and medical treatment a fetus needs then turn around a few months later and claim the male is indeed responsible for the same living organism? How can it be that it is his living sperm then it isn’t, then it is again?
I’m pro choice but certainly don’t feel the pregnancy and cost of medical care and decisions regarding the fetus should not be shared equally and the child belongs to to parents equally. They entered into a partnership when they decided to create the fetus and saying the father has no responsibility in the care of the fetus is not fair to the female or the male.
It's still not his body.
They entered into a partnership when they decided to create the fetus
Come on, Dean. The partnership was about sex, not procreation. People who want to have a baby rarely opt to have an abortion.
When a man can give birth then he can decide what would be best for him, but that will never happen so the final decision is the woman's.
No we are now on the forefront of that technology.
Yea, I am sure that's what God intended.
Technology notwithstanding, when men can give birth then men can have a say what happens to their body otherwise it's still the woman's choice what to do with an unplanned pregnancy
I don’t believe in Gods only what we know to exist and we know we have the technology or soon will in the near future.
When we do, men will have say over their own bodies. Until then, I make medical decisions for me, being the most concerned party involved. It's my health being risked by pregnancy.
Immaterial. It's not his body and it's not his choice!
When you get pregnant, then you can have a say in those decisions.
You're not the one getting pregnant and enduring all the changes and potential complications of pregnancy. Otherwise, see previous statement.
Apparently, he surrendered ownership when he ejaculated.
Pregnancy is not an equal partnership. The woman bears the burden of it.
No, they just decided to have sex. That doesn't equate to wanting a pregnancy. Neither should the woman be forced to endure one against her will if she does not.
As an ex paramedic who has delivered many babies I'm here to say that I am glad that I'm a male. Luckily the first that I delivered on the road was from a woman who was having her fifth. She talked me through what was obviously my first solo delivery. She was calm and didn't scream as many do. Mother and child were healthy.
Had a breach once and was told on the radio to reach in and turn it around. I did and they both lived.
My favorite quote was from a teenager who was having her first, she screamed "it was sure a lot more fun getting this inside me than it is getting it out".
I fully support choice and have operated as an escort at planned parenthood clinics who were being protested by religious zealots who would harass ladies coming in for cancer screening or medical checkups for themselves and the fetuses that they wanted to keep and healthily deliver.
The vast majority of what planned parenthood does is see to it that women and their progeny are healthy.
So, I take it you believe every sperm is sacred so you've never callously taken care of business yourself, right? No crusty socks in your drawer, no shower drain auqunauts sent to an early water grave then?
A man has a virtually unlimited supply of little swimmers while a woman has a limited supply of eggs. That means it truly is the woman who should get to decide whether she wants to keep the fertilized egg or not. There's always plenty more fertilizer where that came from...
Some women and some men have wild passionate unprotected sex. Been there did that.
Some women become impregnated due to the failure of a birth control device. Should have bought the extra large.
Some women are much smarter than some men and seek the services of Planned Parenthood.
Some men are wise as well. Planned Parenthood does not discriminate. A girlfriend dragged me in as a teen for STD screening for both of us and I have been a fan ever since (we both were negative so we fucked liked bunnies).
In this day and age, one can't be too careful.
He doesn't control my body either. It's my body and it's entirely my choice.
What happened to your previous claimed pro-freedom libertarian beliefs, or does that only apply to you and not to others?
When a man can give birth, abortion will suddenly be a constitutional right and they will be able to have one at Hooters and BW3 while they watch football at no cost with 2 weeks paid leave afterward.
What’s different I said I was pro choice how does that not fit witth being a libertarian?
The father doesn't get to make medical decisions for her just because he was involved in the conception! It's her body and it's only her choice to terminate or carry to term.
Robin Williams once said if a man wants to know what it feels like to give birth...Shit a 16 lb bowling ball.
One lady in the throes and pain of delivery looked over to her husband and screamed "you are never, ever fucking me again!"
I spent 4 years having one surgery after another, I was in a hospital for 2 years. You have no idea what men can handle so stop pretending that you know what pain is.
[deleted]
No one is pro abortion
Wow, a sweeping generalization and disingenuousness all in one comment. Good job. BTW, it's also irrelevant.
Just forget about speaking ones mind around here as it surely will be censored if it’s on the wrong side.
Anyone who calls themselves pro choice is actually pro abortion.
Unless you can prove that you have been banned or had comments deleted by Perrie at the behest of the government you have not been censored because your free speech rights do not apply on private property websites. Censorship only applies if the government is limited your free speech rights. This concept has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people and yet to continue to make this hyperbolic claim that you are being censored. Your inability to obey the CoC or the TOS is not censorship. If you don't like the rules here there are 100s of other forums on the web that you can post your nonsensical religious screeds on.
The difference between supporting the right of every woman to make the best choice to have an abortion or to carry the fetus to term is drastically different from the idea that someone intentionally gets pregnant with the goal of having an abortion. You can make this emotional BS claim but until you have proof that women are intentionally getting pregnant to have an abortion your claims are noting more than religious static.
What happened to the Bible command of telling the truth, or do you get to subjectively determine what is truth when it supports your far right agenda?
Only in your narrow mind.
So because he fucked her - she has no rights?
Spare us the playing the victim routine! No one is buying it.
You either have no idea what pro choice means, or you're trying to be disingenuous about it. Which is it?
Apparently when the penis of a conservative man pulls out he takes our constitutional rights with him.
The fact is that the tech industry in general from Facebook and Alphabet on down is rife with the repression and suppression of conservative opinion on line and not at the behest of government but because they can.
It is a shame that you cannot prove that.
Those platforms are their own and if you don't like the rules than don't register to use their sites. Go somewhere else or create your own instead of whining about nonexistent political repression. They have to answer to their advertisers and shareholders so they want to keep harassment and legal risk to a minimum.
The baby was alive, and then suddenly, I saw the catheter entered into the woman's uterus to basically remove the baby, and the baby tried to escape.
I wonder what it looks like when God (arguably the most prolific abortionist in human history) decides to abort them. Equally heinous, I’m sure.
A premature fetus can barely move but leave it to the right to make it seem like the fetus was sprinting around the room trying to get to an exit.
It was just playing solitaire, minding its own business.
Not true. We had two premies ... one born at 36 weeks and the other at 35 weeks. My wife said they both were very active from the first time she could feel them. I could see their hands and feet pressing outward from my wife's abdomen weeks before they were born.
Ummm ... nobody is aborting at 35 and 36 weeks. Jeez.
I never said that they were. Please read comments 6.1 and my reply at 6.1.2 more carefully. Thank you.
The discussion is about abortion, and you decided that premature at 35 or 36 weeks is somehow relevant. However, I should correct my comment. There is one unscrupulous abortionist who would think nothing of aborting at that stage ... and for some strange reason people get together on Sundays to shower it with praise.
Perhaps you should inform Mr. Frost. He's the one who initially said that premature fetuses can barely move. I merely replied to his comment by offering my wife's and my experiences.
I thought you didn't believe in God?
Seems weird for someone without a belief in God to wonder about ANYTHING He may or may not have done.
I thought you did believe in God, so if you’re going to respond then why not try and answer the question?
Okay.
First off, you didn't ASK a question.
You made a comment.
Second, HAD you ACTUALLY ASKED a question, why would I even attempt to answer such a ludicrous question?
I said “I wonder what it look like when ...”. You can’t find a question in there? Perhaps you don’t belong in a discussion forum. You would likely be more comfortable in an insult chat room.
You wondering has absolutely nothing to do with a question.
The only thing I find insulting is someone claiming that it IS a question.
Even so, in my entire life, I have never, ever, not even once, "wondered" what the FSM looks like, acts like, or does.
Probably because I don't waste time in "wondering" about what I consider to be imaginary things.
I write what I mean and mean what I write.
Sorry if that is so offensive to you--a differing opinion.
I will answer it. It looks like God exercising His prerogative as God. Conversely, we are not God, yet we think we can act as if we were. In this case, deciding who gets to live and who dies, based on an arbitrary definition of "human".
Your God allows profoundly disabled fetuses to go on to live profoundly difficult lives, while taking non-disabled fetuses away from grieving parents willy nilly. Think about that next Sunday in the pews.
I think about that all the time. Why wait until Sunday? One thing, though, why do you think it's 'willy nilly?" What do you know about why God does what He does? Has He told you or something?
Is that excusing god for what he does, or just making excuses for god?
God certainly isn't saying or doing anything about it. So we have to deal with things ourselves.
No, it's based on who gets to have a say and choice with respect to their autonomy.
Some theists seem to think they have a direct line to god when they say things like god likes/dislikes/wants/does, ect. something.
why do you think it's 'willy nilly?
If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Neither one.
How do you know?
Nope. That's just want you want it to be about while ignoring the death that is the price of that autonomy.
Okay, but what does this have to do with what I asked Hal? How does Hal know God terminates pregnancies 'willy nilly?"
How does Hal know God terminates pregnancies 'willy nilly?
Are you suggesting that there’s a rational reason for my wife’s five miscarriages for a planned pregnancy, and my daughter’s unplanned pregnancy resulting in a grandson born with half of a heart? I guess if you can convince yourself of that, you are a perfect candidate for religion.
I see. A very thoughtful response for something as complicated as this subject. It looks willy nilly to you, so therefore it must be. Thanks.
There is no more thought more shallow process than the one guided by “he works in mysterious ways”.
This is the ploy of 'God works in mysterious ways'. It argues against using our critical thinking faculties to assess the likelihood of God. No matter how illogical or contradictory, this ploy deems the analysis invalid because 'God could have very good reasons that we are incapable of understanding'.
Essentially this ploy excuses every logical challenge to the existence of God with an argument from ignorance - 'God may have a good reason for this'. It is a perfect example of how religious indoctrination disables critical thinking in matters of faith. A master-stroke that mitigates reasoning that might lead to questioning one's faith.
Sarcasm on<> Of course there is & if you can't figure out what it is (god didn't speak to you), then you have to take it on faith that it was a "good" thing. <>Sarcasm off.
Wow, I boogered that one up good. Let’s try again:
There is no more shallow thought process than the one guided by “he works in mysterious ways”.
Actually, that only seems so because of the way you guys portray it. Those of us who believe God understand that the finite cannot understand all that an infinite being is or does. You guys think that is a cop out but it's simple logic. Most of humanity can't even understand the universe we live in on the level Einstein or Hawking did, let alone how God sees things. So, yeah, we can't completely understand God or why He does what He does.
That doesn't mean we just give up trying to understand. We do try to understand why someone has to endure five miscarriages or be born with only half a heart. We do wonder why God would allow it to happen. The major difference between the believer and the non-believer, in my opinion, is that the believer sees themselves as existing for God's purpose and pleasure and not our own. We believe God is moving toward a goal and our job is to be obedient in our small part in that. I think it pleases Him if we make every effort to understand Him and His goals, why He does what He does and why we should strive to be like His Son, Jesus, but we also know that it pleases Him even more when we don't understand and still trust Him anyway.
But it's just as much a cop out as you claim against us to simply dismiss God, should He exist, because you can't understand why He does the things He does. It's just as much a cop out to claim that if there was a God, He wouldn't allow bad things to happen. There's no reason to think that except human reasoning and human desire. It is the shallowest of thinking to believe such.
I understood what you meant.
I do not disbelieve in your "god". I just do not believe he is the "only" god and that he is infallible. I think it is a cop out to say that when things go bad, one god believers turn around and use the "infallible god excuse".
I don't understand why you guys keep using the word "excuse". Why would an excuse be necessary on God's part when things seem bad? Why would God need an excuse when things don't go the way you want them to?
Because that is what you do. You excuse your "god's" behavior by creating reasons for his actions.
From Webster - Excuse is the correct word for your belief.
excuse
verbDefinition of excuse
(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 a : to make apology for
b : to try to remove blame from
2 : to forgive entirely or disregard as of trivial import : regard as excusable graciously excused his tardiness
3 a : to grant exemption or release to was excused from jury duty
b : to allow to leave excused the class
4 : to serve as excuse for : JUSTIFY nothing can excuse such neglect
excuse
nounDefinition of excuse (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : the act of excusing
2 a : something offered as justification or as grounds for being excused
b excuses plural : an expression of regret for failure to do something
c : a note of explanation of an absence
3 : JUSTIFICATION , REASON
The key difference is atheists (except the extremists - the gnostic atheists - whose claims are irrational IMO) do not assert there is no god. Our arguments are essentially against those who make the claim that a god exists - our arguments essentially challenge belief without evidence. But we also make arguments based on logic which note fundamental contradictions underlying belief in select gods.
Yes it is possible that a god exists and if so, such a being would necessarily be vastly superior to us in every way. God might do all sorts of things for good reasons that make zero sense to us. Granted. The problem I see with your approach is that you exclusively hold to the 'God works in mysterious ways' possibility and flat out reject the possibility that the reason bad things happen to good people, the reason an omniscient/omnipotent god creates little children with terminal congenital diseases, etc., etc.,etc. is that there is no god. Bad things happening for no good reason is what one would expect if there were no god.
Just out of curiosity....what makes you think, 'God' is a "he"?
Well, could be that only an asshole (man) would tell folks - "You worship me or I'll kill you or make your life not worth living".
Pretty much sums it up.
He's not. It's just how He has chosen to present Himself so that we have some way to relate. God doesn't literally have a gender.
How does one come to such specific knowledge ostensibly about the grandest possible entity whose very existence is unevidenced?
For a god to do whatever, including killing things without excuse makes said god morally and ethically unworthy of worship then. It's essentially giving god a free pass.
Considering god hasn't done anything yet....
Nope, what I said is exactly what it is about. It seems you place lesser value on autonomy.
If one believes everything happens because of "god's will" or "plan." or whatever, then logically, the same applies to spontaneous abortions.
That's just a cop-out. One doesn't understand so why bother putting actual thought into it in an attempt to understand?
They were good at explaining things on a simpler level for people to understand.
I noticed god certainly doesn't explain anything.
That's a nice way of saying slavery.
So god wants our trust but is unwilling to reciprocate. Seems like god has trust issues.
God (and the claims for one) gets dismissed due to the lack of evidence for a god.
I'm reminded of something Epicurus said:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Then there's no logical reason to worship such a god.
Would "explanation" be a better term?
Sounds genetic. Might want to all be screened. Sorry for your situation.
Or because there is an evil one working in rebellion against God who brought sin into this world and he tempts people to do bad things out of their own free will that often have bad impacts on good people. It is our mortal sin filled nature that causes disease to happen, even affecting people we consider to be young or relatively innocent. Until the 2nd coming there will be bad things and disease and famine and natural disaster affecting the saved and wicked alike. They are not caused by God but by the rebellion against him by the evil one who has temporary dominion over this planet. God did not cause Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others along with their followers to each kill millions of people.
That has got to be the weirdest non-answer I have ever seen.
What evil one? If this "evil one" is something "god" created then why can't he control or vanquish it?
In some cases He only exists to be blamed when things go wrong. Otherwise to them He doesn’t exist.
I have been trying to be nice lately.
So "he" doesn't exist.
He has defeated Satan. That happened in the cross some 2000 years ago. The battle between good and evil is being watched by the entire universe. It is being played out here. God could not just stamp it out and destroy it immediately or we’d have no free will and all creation would fear an all powerful God who would destroy all opposition to Him and His law outright. The instant that every living human being has heard Gods message and every mind will not change no matter what is said or done, this will all end.
I'm sorry, but are you serious?
So why is "he" still here on earth? If Satan was defeated there would be no evil.....Oh I forgot - you still need your boogie man to scare people into "Christian" morality and "Christian" faith.
Per your religion, Satan operates because God allows him to operate:
God created Satan knowing full well what would happen (omniscience) and God allows Satan to operate even though He could stop him (omnipotence).
Or are you going to claim that God is unable to stop Satan?
Comparing the above to this:
So the defeated Satan is still operating. Quite a contradiction at play.
I feel confident there must be a point in all of this, yet you don't state what it is. Is it that if there is a God and He's who we say we are, then God would never have allowed Satan to do what he did? Something like that?
So YOU are god?
I suspect you understood my point all too well. Nonetheless:
∴ Satan operates because God allows him to operate.
KAG was bemoaning the existence of Satan ...
... yet Satan exists per God's design.
Why are sin still occuring my the second if Satan was defeated?
I stopped eating chocolate 2 years ago but I'll have another one piece in a few minutes.............
May me ask you a question, if you don't mind?
In your opinion is the Jabberwocky non-fiction?
You speak of these people without even a hint of personal condemnation, and yet you revel in your self-appointed ability to sit in judgement of those who doubt or disbelieve.
Guess what? You're doing it wrong.
While your god sat back, allowed it to happen, and still does nothing about it, even today after how many millennia? Seems like god is rather useless.
Medical science would disagree with you.
Just a religious myth.
See first statement.
No, he just doesn't exist period, as there is not one shred of proof or evidence to suggest otherwise. But feel free to prove your god exists.
Then why does evil still exist?
South Park was right! We are just a galactic reality show.
Your god sounds rather impotent then. Or perhaps incompetent. god destroying evil would not affect free will. of course, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient god negates the possibility of free will too.
The instant you can provide some empirical evidence for your god, perhaps more minds will change.
Actually, Satan with a capital S, exists because the Jews copied him from the Ancient Persians. The evolution of the Jewish religion from worshiping multiple gods to creating one of their own is interesting reading.
I believe Islam still refers to "the adversary".
Uh, yeah. Got that. God can remove Satan but doesn't. Satan operates because God allows him to. And????? You're only stating the obvious.
Agreed!! I stated the obvious. I intended it to be clear and obvious.
If you are interested in understanding why I stated the obvious feel free to read the thread back to @ 6.2.41 . But I am not going to again explain the obvious so if you claim to not understand my point I predict I will simply roll my eyes.
Why would anyone worship a god that claims to have the power to eliminate sin but doesn't do it? That same god is claimed to be both omnipotent and omniscient but yet he made imperfect beings when he had the ability to make them perfect, and then he punishes them for sinning when he had the power to both eliminate sin and make them not sin. You god allowed Hell to be created when he had the power to do otherwise. In the US, we have consumer protection laws to protect consumers from companies who willfully make faulty products and then tries to blame the consumer for the problems that those products cause.
Almost half of all fertilized eggs end in spontaneous and involuntary miscarriages of various means before the 15th week, so you cannot claim that your god opposes abortion when he is at fault for most of them.
The field of psychology has a name for that behavior. It's called gaslighting when you tell someone to do something and then criticizes them for doing it. The use of gaslighting in relationships is a sign of an abuser and is one of the actions of a sociopath. Why would anyone worship a god who is a sociopath? Why does your god demand that an imperfect being worships him? Why would anyone want to worship someone who emotionally and physically abuses them? If your god was human he would probably be doing life without the possibility of parole for his actions, so why would any rational person worship him unless you would also worship Charles Manson, Jeff Dahmer, or John Gacy?
I wonder if KAG will accept this explanation for the origin of Satan. I strongly suspect he will disagree with the idea that Satan is a 'borrowed & modified' fictional character.
Interesting stuff though. The Bible is probably the most highly used subject of eisegesis.
In the above quote we have a repeat of the logical disconnect offered by KAG. The quote presumes Satan was not the creation of God which then logically presumes God is not omnipotent and omniscient. Logic and the Bible ...
That does not compute.
I don't know. Maybe KAG will reply.
In my personal experience as a believer for 5 decades of my life, I was taught that all attempts to research and understand the origins of the Bible were to be conducted using the Bible as the only resource to answer all questions about the Bible.
However, I was never taught that it was sinful to research the origins of other religions to gain an understanding on how everyone outside of my sect of Christianity was doomed to everlasting torment for not worshipping the one true god in the one true way.
It did not take long to find out that there were older religions than the Abrahamic ones which puzzled me at first because I did not understand how all survivors of Noah's flood were ignorant of the one true god.
Now I enjoy researching and learning about the origins of world religions from a historical perspective as a religious outsider.
I agree, the study of religion is very interesting. We are very creative creatures who can spin some very interesting tales. But we are not naturally skilled with maintaining coherence when the details start mounting. Hard to keep it all straight. In result, we have works such as the Bible.
(surviving ) works such as the Bible, Chandogya Upanishad, Egyptian Book of the Dead, Epic of Gilgamesh, the Zoroastrian texts.........
Who knows what was lost to fire, floods and warfare prior to those ancient texts?
Plus what was deliberately destroyed when the texts were not in favor with whomever was in power over the centuries.
I have wondered about how much history was never written because a person did not dare to write truthfully about what was really happening in the government of their time.
In today's world, it can be difficult to find an impartial news source. In 1000 years, I wonder how our descendants will judge our ability to discern fact from fiction? How will we compare to the people of the 1st century?
God did not will that any of His creation sin and rebel against Him. He did have a contingency plan in the event it did happen and it’s in play right now.
Lucifer was the creation of God. He became Satan when he decided he should be like God.
Christians claim that God is more powerful than Satan so why does Satan still exist when God has the power to permanently eliminate him?
Most of the Bible reads like a drunken interpretation of Dungeons and Dragons.
and
You are ignoring the problem KAG. The problem is this:
God is omnipotent.
Therefore anything that happens is according to God's will.
If Satan is operating against God that means either God allows him to do so or God is incapable of stopping him.
If God cannot stop Satan then God is not omnipotent.
And on this I remind you of omniscience.
God does not need a contingency plan - that is for human beings who can be surprised by unforseen events.
But God is not surprised. God knows all. God needs no contingency plan.
The moral of our story is that the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience are poison pills to the credibility of the biblical god. They result in contradictions (which are then blindly ignored).
Be careful or I might smite you....or something.
Ah go ahead - it has been that kind of day
Reminds me of an ex girlfriend.
There is exactly as much evidence that our creator has chosen to present itself as a plate of spaghetti and meatballs.
You are a heretic! How dare you blaspheme the FSM. Repent or you shall be boiled until al dente for your beliefs.
Grok?
You are oversimplifying it. Not everything happens according to God's will. At least not in the sense you are trying to impose. It is clear that God wills that everyone comes to Christ for salvation, yet not everyone does. That doesn't indicate impotence on God's part, but rather, His greater will that people are free to choose. Although it is God's will that all be saved, it is His greater will that no one should be forced to come to Christ.
In the case of Satan, he operates against God because God allows it, not because it is His will that Satan should do so. There is no problem to ignore.
Your god is omniscient, so he knows what you will do before you do, so that negates the idea of free will.
Romans 8' says that God has a plan for all of his believers, so wouldn't that negate the possibility of prayer?
Why do you think it would?
So you just wrote what I wrote (in effect):
( I will ignore the semantics of 'God's will' vs 'God allows' given an omnipotent entity and focus instead on the key point that God allows Satan to oppose Him. So hold that point of agreement (so to speak). )
You are ignoring it then. Here is the problem. Note the comment that KAG originally replied to (note the blue text):
KAG replied with:
Read carefully what KAG has claimed. He is saying that evil is the result of Satan rebelling against God - it is all on Satan. Okay, let's go with that. Here is my reply:
KAG bemoans the evil brought by Satan and blames Satan -exclusively- as if Satan were an independent force that could operate even if God did not want him to operate. But we agree (so to speak) that God allows Satan to operate. So KAG's view that God has nothing to do with the evil in the world is indeed a problem - it is a contradiction. If I allow my child to throw rocks at our pet dog when I clearly have the means to prevent it then I am complicit. And, yes, I might have a good reason for allowing such behavior, but the torment is still something I chose to allow and must own that decision. I cannot just blame the child and claim - well he is operating against my will.
The miscarriages all happened with my current wife’s ex-husband. We are beyond child rearing days now, but I swear my ex-wife and daughters can get pregnant and multiply without even thinking about it.
My grandson’s hypoplastic left heart syndrome is the only heart defect my extended family has ever experienced. Thanks to medical advancements he is doing well though.
The point was that it was the one and not the other. That is, God allows Satan to operate, not that God is incapable of stopping him.
I don't think KAG would say that God has nothing to do with the evil in the world. I think he would say God is not responsible for the evil in the world and I would agree with him. God does have something to do with evil in the world in that He opposes it and has a plan for eliminating it.
You seem to be under the impression that because God is omniscient and omnipotent it necessarily means He is responsible for preventing evil from happening and if He doesn't, it is ultimately His fault. I understand why you think so but I think it is erroneous thinking. It's merely the way a human would think. Let's look at two possible ways God could act concerning evil.
Let's look first at the way you apparently feel an omniscient, omnipotent God would act. God creates higher life forms, angels and humans (and whatever else He may have created we may not know about.) He imbues them with free will. Yet, even though He creates them with free will, He destroys them the instant they decide in their hearts to do something God considers evil. He would have to, according to what you consider being complicit. If He actually allowed a being to act on what they have decided to do, God would be complicit because He allowed them to act when He could stop them before they acted. Is this good or bad?
Well, first, we have to ask what the point of Him creating higher beings was in the first place. If God behaved in the manner I just outlined, it would appear that God wished His creations to know that He is, at heart, a tyrant who seemed to just arbitrarily destroy His creations for no reason. No one would understand why God was destroying some and not others. They certainly would not know God as the God of love. He would just be a God they feared because they wouldn't know why God acted in the manner He did.
Worse, they'd never know whether God was right to do what He was doing or whether He was simply using His omnipotence to banish competition. They might wonder if Satan was banished or destroyed because if enough joined Satan, perhaps Satan could actually pull God down. If God simply eliminated everyone the moment they rebelled, it would only prove He had power to do so, not that He was right.
Now let's look at what I believe God is actually doing. God creates higher life forms, angels and humans (and whatever else He may have created we may not know about.) He imbues them with free will. Even though He knows sin will infect His creation, He goes ahead with the plan anyway. He is not responsible for what a creation with free will decides to do with that freedom. That's what having free will means. So, Satan challenges God and God accepts. Because Satan's way is evil, pain, suffering and death result but it appeals because of the illusion his way allows one to be god of their own life. God's way also involves pain and suffering because it requires to cast off the illusion we are god of our own life, but results in life because we believe Him. We, through experiencing the pain and suffering caused by evil, recognize evil for what it is because God teaches us. We see God is not a tyrant, but a patient God of love and forgiveness. One who put Himself on the cross in our place so that we can be with Him forever in peace, safety and unending joy.
In the first scenario, God is a tyrant we don't understand. In the second, God is the lover of our souls who gave everything to save us from sin.
I understood that to be your position. I suspect KAG (the person to whom I addressed my original comment) has a different position. I presume, however, that KAG will simply applaud your response and never address the standing contradiction of his words. He will, I predict, pretend your rebuttal addressed the contradiction.
I suppose we need to hear that from KAG.
The omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything is ultimately responsible for everything that happens. There is no higher point of responsibility.
Evil exists because God allowed it to exist. If God has a plan to eliminate evil then His plan is part of a larger plan that included evil coming into existence. That is, do you think evil sneaked in without God knowing?
Not quite. God is responsible for evil because God is responsible for everything. Evil exists because God allows it to exist.
Yes, I do indeed think like a human.
You do too, right?
I have no 'feeling' on how an omniscient, omnipotent God would act. I have made no claim in this regard.
Free will is impossible if it is possible to know what an entity will do. Further, per your scenario, God created these life forms with the capability to do evil. Thus God brought evil into reality.
We do ask questions such as why God allows little girls to be raped and murdered. Why innocent children die of congenital diseases. And if God is trying to not be feared, Yahweh certainly has a strange way of accomplishing that. How can you read the OT and not recognize this?
God gets what God wants. Right? You are arguing that there might be good reasons for why God has allowed evil: ' God works in mysterious ways .' Speculating on what a God might do does not rebut the point: evil exists because God allows it to exist . So when KAG tries to blame Satan for evil he should recognize that ultimately God is in control. And if KAG argues that God cannot stop Satan then KAG needs to revisit his understanding of omnipotence and omniscience. Either God is ultimately responsible for evil or God is NOT ultimately responsible for evil.
You presume God cannot prevent sin from infecting His creations?
That would be true if God was not omnipotent and omniscient. Those two attributes, however, not only make free will impossible but make God responsible for everything.
Free will contradicts your definition of God.
Basically you posit that God allows evil because it is good for us and this is the very best way to achieve this good. Right?
God takes us through living hell and then there is an eternity of bliss. You sure? What if there are reasons for God to impose other hurdles to cross in Heaven? Eternal life might be a never-ending growth program. Why does your speculation not include that?
Well, here is my scenario for God.
There might be a sentient creator of the universe. If so, we know absolutely nothing about this entity. We do not know if the entity has other divine creatures, if there is a master plan, if the intention is for our benefit or simply malicious amusement for the entity. We know absolutely nothing. The very best we could do is say that a sentient creator is possible. End of story.
Is there a dance called the Texas Shuffle or the Texas side-step perhaps? That's all you'll get from a certain poster.
More fulfilling to bang your head against the wall.
The concept of a "god" only exits in the minds of those who really need something greater than themselves to believe in. This atheist/scientist believes in the scientific method and not much else.
You just dismissed Hal's pain
True, although we may not agree in the manner in which it is true. Hard to say, based on what you've said so far.
I disagree. God is not responsible for what a creature with free will does with that free will. God must allow evil for moral free will to exist.
I do, but I'm learning to think like God does.
I'm sure Satan would agree with you, but this isn't true. God created all things perfectly. It is His creations that brought evil into the world by rebelling against Him.
Probably because I know God and you don't.
I already explained that He doesn't.
I didn't say anything about mysterious ways. I explained to you why God allows evil. I gave you a logical reason for why. If you choose to relegate it to "mysterious ways", that's your choice.
Yes, evil exists because God allows it to. But Satan is responsible for the evil in the world. God did not make Satan rebel. Satan chose to do that. That God is ultimately in control doesn't make Him blameworthy for evil. That's ridiculous. What would you expect God to do? Cause you to collapse in agony every time you held a thought He didn't approve of let alone do something He didn't approve of? What would you accuse God of then?
I assume that God, who always does things perfectly, created exactly what He intended to.
That appears to be your opinion.
No, it contradicts your idea of God.
No. I'm saying that God allows us to choose His way or Satan's. It is the best way to prove God's way is the better way. The "we" I refer to are those of us who have chosen to believe God. The pain and suffering we go through help us to see evil as God does.
Yes, I'm sure. If there were other hurdles in Heaven, God would have told us. Instead, we are assured that we would be just like Jesus, who hardly needs further growth.
My reply was not addressed to Hal's revelation of miscarriages or grandson's heart condition. If you look at it more closely, I was replying to something he said earlier.
It would not matter. This is all speculation on how an omnipotent / omniscient creator of the universe might operate.
There can be no free will if it is possible to know the future. If God (or anything really) is omniscient then it is possible to know the future. Free will is impossible if the future is knowable.
How could you possibly gauge your progress? There are billions of people who think they know God and they disagree like crazy. How could you possibly know that you are on the right track?
So God holds all the cards, did all the creating, is omnipotent and omniscient yet the buck does not stop with God? Evil came from lesser creatures and the omniscient / omnipotent designer bears no responsibility? Beyond the breakdown in simple logic, this would imply that evil came to pass and surprised God. An omniscient entity with a master plan cannot, by definition, be surprised. So evil either was part of God's plan (direct responsibility) or God is not omniscient. And to keep the earlier thought going - an omnipotent, omniscient creator has no wiggle room. Whatever His creatures do is ultimately His doing.
Probably.
I already explained that anything that happens as a result of an omnipotent and omniscient entity is what the entity wants. No surprises possible. No refusal possible. What happens is a result of the entity allowing it to happen (indeed setting the stage so that it will happen) and knowing full well when and where it will happen.
You offered speculation on what an omniscient / omnipotent entity might be thinking. Your speculation presumes that extraordinary actions (such as divine sacrifice) is the best course of action. You cannot answer why this would be so ... you simply present it. That is one example of the mystery that remains. As I have noted earlier, if God wants people to learn a lesson He could just wire the knowledge into our brains. My speculation is not less credible than yours and it has the added quality of parsimony. No need for mysterious actions that only a God could possibly understand.
Blame is not really the approach I am using. I am talking about the ultimate cause. You cannot define a God who is omnipotent and omniscient and then grant plausible deniability for the bad consequences of His choices. Omniscience and omnipotence are poison pills in the definition of a God if one expects to hold others ultimately responsible for anything (good or bad).
I think the ancient men who conceived of the biblical God did not think this through. The earlier attempts (Greek, Roman, Norse, etc.) mythology provided Gods that were imperfect and lacked the truly awesome powers of omnipotence and omniscience. My view is that in the zeal to market the bigger and better God, the ancient men bit off more than they could chew. They created the most powerful entity possible. Trouble is, with all that power comes ultimate responsibility.
The biblical definition of God is flawed Drakk. That is the problem.
Logical. A perfect God would make no mistakes. And if God is also all powerful and all knowing, then God gets what God wants.
Actually the free will problem has nothing whatsoever to do with any god. If the future is knowable (even if no entity actually knows it) then free will is impossible. If the future is knowable then free will is simply an illusion. Pure logic. No god concept required.
You do not think that is God doing what is good for us? I did not expect you to hold the position that God would do anything that was not in the best interest of His creations.
Told us how? What if the Bible is simply words from ancient human beings who sought to influence others with powerful stories of fear and awe? Looking at the Bible it certainly reads as though it was merely the result of ancient men putting thoughts to paper. Nothing that evidences divinity. Plenty that evidences errant ancient human beings.
I truly don't know what else to tell you, TiG. I've answered all these questions before. Nothing I will say will make any difference. Maybe you should try something else? Maybe you should try asking God? Maybe ask, "God, if you exist, am I wrong?" What can it hurt?
That is a statement I can also make. But I am not trying to change your mind. Are you trying to change mine? This, to me, is all about the dialectic. It is an intellectual point/counterpoint in an attempt to provide food for thought. Thought mostly by others (rather than us).
If there is a god, it would be up to god to communicate with me. There really is nothing I can do. Note: unlike you I am fully convinced that the Bible (and all other holy books) are nothing more than the words of ancient men. Likewise, I am convinced that religions are also man-made mechanisms (largely an instruments of control). If there is a god, then nobody has clue one about the god and certainly has no method of communication.
You people remind me of those who argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
You argue about things that no one can know as if you have definitive answers. And do it over and over and over again.
Human Free will is NOT incompatible with the existence of an all knowing God.
God is a supernatural entity. You and I exist within THIS nature. We go on one type of track and God operates on another. The fact that he or it may see our track doesnt mean that OUR experience of our track is effected.
Not only do we have free will, the nature of this existence is such that we cannot ever NOT HAVE free will. Do your best to act as if you don't have free will. You can't do it. Even deciding that you don't have free will is an act of free will.
Nonetheless, and after the admission that you have free will, you still don't know whether or not there is an all knowing God, do you?
All you have is your "logic" about it, which falls short of an explanation of any SUPER natural being that very well may transcend our version of "logic".
Can you see the enormous irony in your complaint?
Two different topics, same behavior.
All all your posts here are right on. Well said.
I could not have said any of it better than you did here.
As usual, John, you do not read what I write. If you did you would see that I routinely opine that it is likely nobody knows anything about God (or even if God exists).
Yes it is. It cannot exist if the future is knowable. It does not even matter if there is an omniscient entity. If the future is knowable then nobody can make any decision that would vary from what a future state will be. Otherwise the future would not be knowable.
Are you providing a definition or are you stating a fact?
You do not understand the concept of determinism. If the future can be known then reality (our reality) is deterministic. If our reality is deterministic then we cannot -by definition- have free will. We can have an illusion of free will, but free will (being able to take actions that change the future) is logically impossible if the future is determined.
Hey John, we might have free will. And if we have free will then that logically means that the future is not knowable. See? But even if we do not have free will, it is easy to imagine (at least for me) how we can think we have free will. How could we tell the difference? We think we are making all the decisions but how do we know that our consciousness is not simply a reactive mechanism that makes it appear to us as though we are the original actor? ( Here I am hinting at actual scientific research underway in the area of human consciousness. )
First, I did not admit that we have free will. I do not know if we do or not. And I routinely note that there could be an all knowing god. So your question is ill-informed. Maybe try again based on what I just wrote?
Yes!! And I stick with logic, facts and definitions and do not presume what I cannot know. If you actually paid attention to what I write, you would see that I do not even attempt to explain such an entity. Quite the opposite. I stick with logic, facts and definitions. You should read what I write more closely so that your criticism is based on facts rather than whatever you dream up.
LOL As predicted.
LOL. First of all , Donald Trump's presidency is a crisis for our country. He's not qualified to be president of the United States. I'm not the only one who thinks that. Millions of people think that. It is discussed in the national media on a daily basis.
"Debating" the existence of God has no such immediacy.
Second, there is a definitive answer to the Trump problem, he needs to be removed from office asap. Again, I am hardly the only one who says that. There are millions and millions who agree.
There is no definitive answer to the existence of God.
You want to require God to conform to your understanding of logic. I really don't think it works that way.
YOU , and I, cannot ever experience not having free will. It is not possible. This is true whether or not an all knowing God exists. End of story.
I agree.
Do you understand the value of debate? Do you think that a question of debate must be completely resolved for a debate to have value? Sure if one does not read the actual debate it is of no value, but debate (the dialectic) is one of the best mechanisms for bringing forth concepts to ponder.
And if you find no value in the debate you can easily just skip it.
Endlessly complaining about Trump being a lying, characterless, .... individual, on the other hand, get real old quickly. Yeah, most of us know this and many agree. That is why I largely ignore most of your seeds and refrain from commenting. Likewise, I invite you to ignore me entirely. Given the quality of your responses thus far, I really do not mind if you never address anything I write.
That is what you think I wrote? Really? You miss my actual point and instead end up with this nonsense??
Because ... ? You left out the part where you explain your declaration. Somewhat important.
What amazes me is that you don't realize that you did exactly that.
I was wondering if you were going to use this as an opportunity to try to throw me under the bus.
Note that I did no such thing with you.
Good to know.
Ok everyone. The conversation has gone far far afield from the original topic of the seeded article. That’s ok with me now but please keep it together and be civil in a spirit of comity.
I am interested to hear your explanation for this proclamation (although I predict it will use argumentum ad ignorantiam). John proclaimed this:
Based on this:
My response @6.2.94 notes that free will is necessarily a function of the future being knowable. If the future is knowable (even if no entity is omniscient) free will cannot exist. Free will requires that one be able to make choices which determine (affect ... change) the future — that can only occur if the future is unknowable.
In short: free will = unknowable future.
Illustration:
If we are constrained by a knowable future then it is possible to know that you will (for example) write comment 13.2.14 at precisely 10:17pm arguing in favor of free will.
Free will means we are not constrained by a knowable future and you could act in a manner that does not end up with you writing comment 13.2.14 at 10:17pm. Free will means the effects of the causes are unknowable. Free will means the future is determined by our actions. A pre-determined (knowable) future thus precludes free will.
If the future is knowable, at 10:17pm you are indeed penning comment 13.2.14 under the illusion of free will. (per my example of course)
Um, not sure how I threw you under the bus. You feel I've betrayed you in some way? How?
When someone makes an unfounded (or confused) allegation - especially one as ridiculous as this was - it is less-than-stellar for another to simply opportunistically jump on the bandwagon and proclaim it to be correct. Especially without providing any explanation (you know, a quote and supporting rationale) for supporting such an obviously wrong proclamation.
In short: my discussion on free-will does not depend upon the existence or non-existence of a god. It is absurd to proclaim that my logic is imposing conformity on a god or that it had anything to do with the existence of a god.
As a long time paramedic I can attest to the fact that spontaneous abortions are far more common.
Some studies show that 25% or more fertilized eggs either don't take or are miscarried. If there is a God making those decisions then it would be the largest abortion provider on the planet. Why do religious folk believe God should get to make that choice but the woman shouldn't? If that woman is an atheist and believes it's random chance making that choice, not any God, why should she let random chance make choices in her life instead of making those choices for herself? "Okay, this outcome will forever change the rest of my life on this planet, and likely the lives of everyone around me, let's just throw the dice instead of carefully making a plan, that sounds smart...". And since we are a secular society, why would anyone force their religious opinions or the opinions of an unproven God on other citizens against their will?
Another right wing bullshit lie being passed off as the truth.
Do these folks just jump on any piece of meat? No wonder it's called "trolling" the hook got bit hard on this one...
Check thia out from wiki.....
She lied and you took the bait.....This reminds me of all the made up right wing bullshit stories that kept getting seeded and debunked in 10 minutes. With the fake Obamacare horror stories
Basically this BS is an updated version of the infamous and fake silent scream video.
just don't understand...why do they have to make shit up and then run away when they get exposed?
Look at O'keefe, this asshole was the darling and the finder of truth. He gets exposed for his lies he trolled the droolers with while committing crimes like wiretapping.
Sounds like she as a bad employee, also sounds like she is a criminal and could have stolen people's personal information.
Yes...and here they go lining up behind another liar and criminal because they were told what they want to hear instead of the truth.
The rights war on women marches on.
There is no war on women. There is no need to make stuff up.
You should REALLY take your own advice.
Well, if some insist on making false statements, then it is on them to correct them.
There simply is no war on women, period.
That is your OPINION.
Why, yes, yes it is.
Just like it is your OPINION that there is some war on women.
So saying "Happy Holidays" is tantamount to a "war on Christmas", but shouting and screaming at women trying to access PP, calling them murders, doing everything in your power to deny a woman her right to choose, that's all just a friendly afternoon chat, right?
If you have a problem with those claiming a "war on Christmas", please, take it up with THEM.
I have never done any of the things you describe. Please take THAT up with those who do,
I am not anti-abortion, but I do feel that it is a rather piss-poor method of contraception in this day and age when so many other, safer, more affordable methods are available. Like I have said many times--have all the abortions you want and can afford to pay for. I don't care. I would rather they be aborted than brought into this world by people unprepared and in many case, unwilling to deal with raising a child emotionally, physically, and financially.
Hmmmm. I wonder if the women that jettisoned out of the Republican party would agree?
So a Texan should maybe ask his mother, aunts, sisters, wives whether they feel the same way. Seems Texas holds the record for rape and sexual abuse.
You have some examples to back up this line of bull?
That's Bull too.
How much fake news is the left allowed to post on a thread?
Ask them.
Why would I care?
I don't care if someone erroneously thinks there is a war on women.
WTF does your last sentence have to do with it?
No one said you personally were waging a war on women and their rights. No one claimed you are yelling or screaming at them when they try to exercise their rights by going into a PP. But those things are happening, and you defended them by lying, claiming they're not happening when it is very plain to see they are. So in that regard, you could not be more wrong and by your defending them you put yourself on the side with those religious bigots who are waging that war.
That's nice. I never claimed anyone did.
Once again, I never claimed anyone did.
I did not lie. I never said they weren't happening. Please don't make up my responses and then attempt to argue with me over them.
I defended no one. Please quote me on that, or on virtually anything else in your post that you have claimed I said. Are you calling me a bigot?
"I have never done any of the things you describe." 8.1.6
"I did not lie. I never said they weren't happening." 8.1.14
"There simply is no war on women, period." 8.1.2
"There is no war on women. There is no need to make stuff up." 8.1
Your message could not be more clear. You support a woman's right to choose but also reject the idea that others don't and are waging a metaphorical war on a woman's right to choose. You're not defending those who attack women's rights, but you won't condemn those who attack women's rights because you claim they don't exist. Got it.
I certainly did write those words. But not a single quote supported your earlier assertions.
If you wish to debate any further, please supply a direct quote where I won't condemn those who attack women's rights because I claim they don't exist.
BTW, "War on Women" is an OPINION as much as "There is NO War on Women" is.
And Concerned Women For America? https://concernedwomen.org There is no war on women as the pro life movement has a lot of women involved in it. Many women realize they don’t have to be able to take the life of their own child to have political or economic power or personal fulfillment.
They are a bunch of religious busybodies who have accepted that they are 2nd class citizens, to both their husband and the church. How many of them have been forced by us nasty secular progressives to have an abortion?
When will they embrace the idea that other women have the right to control their body, or is that not part of their pro-birth agenda?
The left's war on personal responsibility marches on.
Seems to me that they're demanding the right to assume responsibility, which some would deny them. Some would even deny them the right to assume responsibility for the results of being the victims of rape and incest. It's sad that some must sometimes assume that responsibility, but it's a biological reality.
Interesting that you have to narrow it down to abortion being only about something as specific as rape and incest in order to make your point vaguely work.
I didn't narrow it down. You did.
Abortion is a method of taking responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy. It might not be a method of which you approve, but that's irrelevant. So long as these women are not asking you to either pay for their abortions or pay for their kids, they're taking responsibility.
By terminating someone else's life? Kind of like a criminal terminating the life of a witness, don't you think?
Would the fetus be testifying? If not, no, nothing like terminating the life of a witness.
The mother's right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right of the fetus to use her body as a life support system.
Odd that it seems that God, who should be powerful enough that a pregnancy has no effect on Him, is perfectly justified in terminating pregnancies left, right, and center, while a woman whose pregnancy has a profound effect on her is not.
Your sweeping generalization aside, having an abortion is taking responsibility.
There is no other "someone" in an abortion. The only "life" that matters or is paramount is the woman in question.
Not even a little. Nice apples to oranges though.
Apparently, some people disagree with that position. Go figure.
Can you prove that?
LOL. I know you're smarter than that. I know you understand the parallel. The criminal terminates the witness because the criminal doesn't want to face the consequences of their action. The woman terminates the pregnancy because she doesn't want to face the consequences of her actions.
Even so, yes, sometimes the fetus testifies. How many young women get abortions to keep their parents or others from finding out they got pregnant? How many women who cheated on their husbands?
Abortion isn't a consequence? Women go from PP to champagne brunches without missing a beat?
Is sex something deserving of punishment? Something about which there needs to be testimony? How sad.
There are some on the right that think a woman having an orgasm is something that should never happen. Misogyny, plain and simple.
I think that's backwards. I think that, before you (generic you) go abolishing women's say over their own bodies, it's incumbent on you to prove that you have a compelling reason, an "other someone", for which to do so. Else you relegate women to the status of "less than" another human (as distinct from another person), which is misogynistic, IMO.
I'm pretty sure some on the left would say the same thing.
Ridiculous no matter who says it.
Are you suggesting an embryo/fetus is a "someone," or person? It's not considered as such legally or scientifically. So consider that proof.
You are trying to disingenuously equate abortion with murder. They are not the same.
Really? Cite a case where a fetus testified!
Irrelevant. Getting an abortion for whatever reason is still a woman's right to choose.
Right now, the reason abortion is legal is because a bunch of lawyers don't recognize the unborn as human beings. Even if I lost my faith in God and became an atheist, I will never understand how that can be a critically reasoned justification for abortion. What qualifies a lawyer to decide who's human and who isn't?
Sometimes, when I see a laughing five year old, I wonder what if that child's mother had made another choice? I try to imagine that child just suddenly disappearing. Not being there. I look at a playground and wonder how many holes there are there? Holes where a child should have been running and laughing but aren't? I wonder how a woman can get an abortion and not wonder, five years later, what their child might be doing at this very moment had she chosen differently. I look at the wonderful, amazing children of my very liberal and progressive friend and his wife and wonder how easily they might not have been. I don't understand why someone can champion abortion but condemn the woman who leaves her newborn in the dumpster.
I know the left wants to put it in terms of "right of the woman and her body" but I can't not think of it in terms of her deciding whether someone else will exist or not.
Yeah, I know. Everything's misogynistic. Sorry, but I don't see it that way. I don't think it's misogynistic to believe people have responsibility. I have the responsibility to not get a woman pregnant if we do not want to have a baby, therefore I act in a manner that prevents it. That's my responsibility as a man. It isn't to have sex just because I want to and leave her with the consequences. It's no different for a woman. If you find that misogynistic, so be it.
Wow. This is an example of critical thinking, is it?
You do realize if she had, you wouldn't have seen that 5 year old so never would have had that thought?
Termination is taking responsibility - just not the way you would like.
What if her god made another choice?
Because one is a choice made when the fetus depends on a woman who may or may not be a willing host to do its breathing and eating for it, and the other could easily be kept alive by another, willing person who makes a conscious choice to do so.
A woman who has an abortion is taking responsibility. She's just not being punished for long enough, I suppose.
Seems that Trump has never taken any sort of personal responsibility in his whole perverted, abusive life.
deleted
Perhaps. At the very least, it's an example of rational thinking. But your reply is an example of avoiding the points made.
That's because they are not yet born or an individual. So they are not and should not be recognized as such, and for good reason.
What does faith or the lack thereof have to do with anything? nobody needs to justify anything for an abortion. it's a woman's right and choice. That's good enough. She need not justify her choice to you or anyone else!
Lawyers merely argued that denying a woman the right to an abortion infringes on her personal rights and autonomy.
No one is championing abortion. Only that a woman has the right to choose for herself. If anything, it's championing individual rights.
That's because you're thinking emotionally rather than rationally.
Then you're probably wrong.
No one is saying they don't. But electing to have an abortion is taking responsibility.
Great. And many women get pregnant anyway despite attempts to prevent pregnancy. Birth control can and does fail sometimes.
Termination is dodging responsibility. The bottom line. Exceptions being severe deformities, life of the mother, rape, and incest.
Termination is taking responsibility for one's actions - you just don't like it, but you don't have to.
So it is only murder when you say it is?
No it's not!
Other than 'who cares,' it's really none of your business anyway!
Why have exceptions? Allowing abortion in some cases but not others seems rather hypocritical.
That would be incorrect. I think about all the people who aren't here because of abortion all the time. I wonder what they might have been like. What they may have grown up to be? I wonder what a woman's children might think if they learned that she aborted one of their siblings. Would they wonder, why did I get to live and they didn't?
What people? Are they male or female? African American, European descent, Asian, Native American - do you have specific scenarios for each one? What are their names? How many do you think about in a day?
Do you wonder about children killed via war? Do you wonder if children that had parents that killed people during war think "why did I live and they didn't"? Do you wonder what those children may have grown up to be? Do you wonder about those things with murdered children (ones that actually LIVED) that die every day? Are any of those worthy of your concern?
If that is how you spend your days I feel sorry for you and your family because you must have no time left for worrying about your own family.
Exactly. You are 100% correct in that comment.
Apparently you feel this is making some sort of point, but I can't imagine what it might be.
Yes, actually. Still don't get your point, though.
Since I am a single male who never married and never had children I'm free to think about a lot of things. But even if I did have a family I don't see why that would be a barrier? Perhaps you can explain it?
Apparently some can only think of one thing at a time and worry about only one thing!
No, I just think it is absurd to believe someone sits around all day making up scenarios about fetuses of people that they have never met & never will meet and has no clue as to the circumstances of those people. If you want to believe that malarkey by all means go ahead.
Gee, I am real sorry you don't like me voicing my opinions.
But I am going to keep doing so here, just like everyone else.
Look, all I want is for people to pay for the kids they CHOOSE to bring into the world. I know personal responsibility is no longer fashionable, but I am old fashioned that way. Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. And just because I don't want to pay for other people's kids doesn't stop you from paying for them if you choose.
What scenario do you believe I made up about fetuses of people I have never met, and what post did you read it in?
Can you quote me on that??
Oh FFS spare me the drama queen bullshit.
'I look at the wonderful, amazing children of my very liberal and progressive friend and his wife and wonder how easily they might not have been.'
Are you inferring that only liberals and progressives have abortions?
I bet he's paid for a lot of abortions. He wanted Marla to abort.
He had sex with a porn star without a condom.
Sure you do. What a waste of time. Do you often waste your time on such nonsense?
Really, what a pathetic waste of time.
Trying to preserve the life of an innocent preborn human baby 🍼 👶 is never a waste of time.
Thinking of all the contributions that those who never got to be born because of what their mother and a technician did could have made to this great country is a sobering thing to do.
It is when it's none of your business or concern!
It could also have made this country a hell hole too. Is that the type of argument you really want to present?
Who came up with that pre born human baby garbage?
You have no business trying to inject your religious mythology into the life or the medical decisions of another person. It is her body and the decision to terminate the pregnancy is only her choice.
If only Fred Trump had worn a condom more than 70 years ago.
That emotional nonsense is very effective for people who don't want to or cannot think logically.
Mama tRump should have swallowed.
We could say the same thing about the parents of pro abortion leaders, politicians, and celebrities.
Then who would you condemn?
No one is pro abortion you saying and wishing it doesn't make it true.
Do you think people who can not afford kids should be bringing them into the world for the rest of us to support?
Or should they wait until they can afford to do it for themselves?
George Carlin's words are so true:
Why, why, why, why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't wanna fuck in the first place? Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked. Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you reach military age. Then they think you're just fine. Just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life... pro-life... These people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it? They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.
George Carlin was the greatest at explaining the way things really are!
George Carlin wasn't a comedian, he was a walking POS with a mouth
His 10 million dollar net worth at the time of his death would deem your opinion highly suspect.
Why would a rational person be offended by his wit and social commentary? Are you Catholic ?
That only means there is enough POS that liked him.
??? do you mean "there are"?????
Does this also apply to the people that say Trump is a wonderful business man because of his inherited wealth?
"Rational" sums it up.
He was SPOT on comedian or not.
I liked George Carlin enough to pay to see him perform, so by your argument am I a POS?
Got me, you would have to ask the people that think he's a wonderful businessman.
Would you call them POS as you do people who find Carlin humorous? Same premise applies.
Yes maybe some of his employees that have him to thank for a job as his organization provides about 22000 jobs.
If he decides to pay them. Or does that only apply to his contractors?
No, I would call them misinformed.
I see, so people that believe in Trump are misinformed, but people that find a comedian humorous are POS because you have a different type of sense of humor - guess it makes sense somewhere.
Instead of calling people that thought Carlin was humorous POS I'll say they have a warped sense of humor. Carlin was more of a progressive mouthpiece than a comedian.
I disagree. Carlin was brilliantly funny.
Pretty accurate though I wouldn’t call another human that particular thing no matter how much I disagree with them. He was a bitter old man.
True.
George Carlin was never political.
Carlin was bitter because stupid people pissed him off. In his mind what he was saying was very obvious but for many people he was a radical.
Please give 3 examples of his insanity.
We're not talking about Donald Rump here.
I think you have that backwards. I think only POS don't like him.
Women have the complete right to have an abortion--it is the law, after all.
Have as many as you wish and can pay for for yourself.
Don't want an abortion, don't have one. Kind of like with guns--don't want one, don't buy one.
Birth control is readily and cheaply available.
Can't afford an abortion, think twice or three times before engaging in sexual intercourse. Demand that your partner uses protection, and the woman, if not wanting kids, should, too.
How many times do you need to be told YOU DO NOT PAY FOR ABORTIONS!? And are you just as pissed at the thought of paying for a fucking wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for? Did you know men are 100% responsible for pregnancies? None can occur without the damn sperm. I can not WAIT until your next life as a fertile subjugated woman of color.
I didn't state anything of the sort about me paying for abortions. Please point out what led you to believe I did. I simply stated have as many abortions as you want or can afford. Is that not the way it should be?
Yes, I know how babies are made. Perhaps in your haste to chastise me for something I didn't write, you simply overlooked this:
I'll highlight it for you this time.
Then there was no need to say
was there? Unless your goal was to start a fight.
It's like saying, out of the blue, "Ugh! I hate rainy weather!", then, when someone points out that it is actually sunny and dry, whining, "I didn't say it was raining! I was just saying that I hate rainy weather!"
I will say what I wish within the C of C, as is everyone's right here.
I am real sorry if you personally don't like it.
I don't like everything people write, either.
Clearly you have never been young, or, hooked up with a woman after a few drinks. It's times like those that people make mistakes. It happens.
Yes, and if they don't want the child, if the woman gets pregnant, she should get an abortion.
Hooking up and being young really has nothing to do with it.
But if both KNOW that they do not want to conceive, is it asking too much for both of them to protect themselves from that?
if the protection they choose fails, the woman can always abort, right?
Don't you think it far wiser to prepare and protect BEFORE becoming pregnant so the woman doesn't have to go through an abortion?
I used to work with a woman who had 2 kids. Both of them were conceived while she was on the Pill.
Yes, protection does fail occasionally. Then she can get an abortion.
That is why, IMO, it is better if BOTH partners are protected.
The woman you refer to must have changed her mind about kids once she became pregnant.
No shit, but mistakes happen.
I believe it. The pill is very effective but it's, (obviously), not 100%. Even Depopravara isn't 100%.
As I am sure has been stated, the only 100% effective birth control is to not have sex. But I mean, where is the fun in that?
Agreed.
Now ask most women how many of their partners were delighted to put on a condom and never bitched about it, or volunteered to have a vasectomy rather than expect their partners to have a tubal.
Once again, I don't CARE what people do in their bedrooms.
If a woman wants her partner to wear a condom, and he doesn't want to, IMO, she should tell him to f&*% off. Who gives a flying... if he gets mad?
How hard is that?
And an abortion remedies that.
What is the problem?
Fair enough. I expect to see some social pressure from men on other men, to stop pulling the crap that many men are known for pulling - "just this once, baby", "I'll pull out, I swear", "it doesn't feel as good", and "no way is anyone clipping me."
Because it's easy to say "demand you partner use protection", but the responsibility for contraception always seems to fall to women, especially among those who would deny women the right to seek abortions. No politicians are telling men to hold an aspirin between their knees.
Look, a woman who CHOOSES to have unprotected sex is just as culpable as the man, IMO.
Why wouldn't she be?
If a woman falls for crap some man tells them, that's on them. It is freaking 2018 and people know what causes pregnancy. The man certainly isn't blameless, but come on, be realistic.
What two people decide between themselves isn't my business. I don't care if she doesn't want to make him wear a condom, and I don't care if he doesn't insist she use protection. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
Have an abortion or not. Have kids or not.
All I ask is that everyone take responsibility for their own actions.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is taking responsibility. You say you don't care if women get abortions so why are you here arguing?
I'm not arguing.
Abortion, for those who don't want kids, is taking responsibility, and I for one am always glad when people who decide they are not ready to be a parent makes the decision not to become one.
I don't want another child born to people unprepared or unwilling to take care of a child.
My point is that it takes two to tango. The woman is just as responsible for becoming pregnant as the man is for impregnating her.
Other than cases of rape who believes otherwise? And thus you are here to poke and inflame not discuss.
It is a responsible way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
So is having a tumor removed.
Let me see if I understand this argument of yours. You oppose paying taxes that would be used to support that child and think that paying taxes are unconstitutional because they are an overreach of power, but you have no problem allowing the government to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and then raise it without assistance from the government that forced her to have it. [deleted]
Life will find a way.
Yes, you did. 11.1.18
[deleted]
[deleted]
Double negative makes WHAT?
Ah, I have to adhere to my P3 rules and I do not think I would look good as a frog....
Without women there wouldn't be any pregnancies.
If you are playing a game - you are playing solitaire. Your words and grammar make no sense. Please try punctuation and correct sentence structure.
A POSITIVE - ( - plus - = +) - learned that the third time I took algebra.
I loved Algebra.
Technically, yes it is!
So? By that reasoning, taking antibiotics is also the termination of life.
If only birth control worked 100% of the time or people were less horny in general, then perhaps there would be less. Oh well....
Time to go back to school. The sum of two negative integers equals a negative number. The multiplication of two negative integers equals a positive number.
I hated it. It seemed arcane to me because they didn't show me how I could use it to do something meaningful.
However if we apply it to grammar:
"I didn't say that I said abortion isn't birth control"
would mean:
I did say that I said abortion is birth control.
One of my favorite subjects.
I dreaded algebra and calculus. I paid a tutor in college to help me.
Math is my thing. That and computers.
Enough with the personal attacks.
I was decent at math, but I actually started to enjoy it and understand it better when I applied it to science in my chemistry and physics classes. It became much less abstract after that.
I apologize for misunderstanding.
Ok
Was there something in particular that makes you think anybody on the planet needs reminding conservatives won't pay for abortions? If YOU aren't concerned, why the hell did you bring it up?
And I'll make my point bold for you as well. WOMEN USE DIFFERENT CONTRACEPTION FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, NOT ALL FOR SEX AND PREGNANCY PREVENTION. WOMEN'S HEALTH, WHICH INCLUDES REPRODUCTION, IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS, just like women don't get to decide what your insurance covers. Or should we?
Nope, not a thing about anyone else paying. Have all you want and can afford.
Never claimed otherwise. The fact that contraceptives are used for other reasons doesn't have one damn thing to do with abortion. My insurance and the law determines what my insurance covers. If you would like to see that changed, please contact your reps in Congress. Saying that a woman's health isn't anyone else's business is rather shortsighted. The overall health of ALL Americans should be of concern to ALL Americans. You know, as part of an interconnected society and all. I don't look at it emotionally, but rather logically. Abortions are legal, and I encourage those who don't want kids, can't afford kids, are unprepared to care for kids emotionally, financially and physically to have abortions so they do not bring a child into the world that becomes a burden on society. I wish they would use all means of contraceptives easily and readily available to them, but we all know that not everyone is smart enough or disciplined enough to do so, so sometimes they just have to avail themselves of the last best option.
Are you not reading what you write? You keep saying you aren't claiming things, the same things you keep bringing up. Since its clear you don't understand women's reproductive health, I'll let you live in that bubble. Just not in the mood for that bullshit today. Your comments on this subject tend to be condescending and patronizing on a subject you really do not understand on the level it requires. It's about so much more than being 'smart enough or disciplined enough'.
Yes, it is, except that requires more than just monitoring female sex habits, which is the only area society seems to feel it has the right to control. And they make sure it always comes down to sex and slut shaming. With nary a peep about the sperm.
Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
I am not monitoring anyone, nor have I called for such monitoring.
I keep saying I don't claim things when people state that I have claimed things I have not.
When people stop saying I claim things untruthfully, I will stop saying I didn't claim it.
Look, if people aren't smart enough in this day and age, with birth control readily and cheaply available, to prevent pregnancy, then NO, I don't want those dumbasses to have kids they will not be able or willing to support.
You are welcome to play the female victim card all day long if you want, but I ain't buying it.
Birth control isn't 100% effective. Do you support government-provided free birth control and explicit sex education classes in public schools?
I know it's weird but I was always really good at physics, chemistry and sucked at math.
he he - it was the opposite for me.
That is the way that I was. The scientific concepts were very easy for me to understand. I made silly mistakes in the calculations.
Lol, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, nothing changes. You bring the same shit up every time and then try to deny you did it. And its STILL reduced to sex. You just can't grasp that reproductive physiology is not separated from the rest of our body. Probably best to stay in that man bubble.
I don't know why anyone entertains his nonsense. Same shit, different day.
It's best to ignore certain posters. Same shit, different day.
That ignore thing cuts both ways and you know who might make the top of others list to ignore. Be careful what you wish for.
Whatever. Who cares?
Don't threaten me with my fantasies!
I knew a woman who was on Depo Provera after having several children and she still got pregnant regularly while on it.
I get real tired of the nonsense that women using protection and still getting pregnant she still must somehow be punished for having sex and enjoying it.
Even if both parties use protection - it still sometimes doesn't work!
That is your opinion. I see it differently.
Ah, the old Obama line about being punished by having a baby.
That's a matter of opinion, is it not? Some women might feel having a child is akin to "punishment." More might view it as punishment if they were required to remain pregnant against their will.
And most women don't find labor and delivery to be a pleasure cruise.
But it's not "punishment."
Why should the religious beliefs of others have any say in the life choices of a woman? Please send your Drs name to me in PM so I can discuss your medical care and confirm that it supports my beliefs. I'd also like to meet with your accountant and your financial advisor.
That is only the start of 18+ years of pain if she didn't want or cannot support a child for various reasons.
and probably will keep the cycle going for more generations
Also comment number 500!
If a person genuinely can’t financially support the child at moment of birth and or really would reject their own child as not wanted, the 18 years can be avoided by adoption of the child by someone who can support and does want the baby.
Women are not human incubators for the infertile, if a woman chooses to have an abortion it's her choice. There are over 100,000s of children in the US waiting to be adopted
No woman can be required to carry a pregnancy to term to fulfill your religious beliefs. What is it going to take for you to understand that your religious beliefs end at the tip of your nose where the rights of others begin?
No man can deputize themselves as the pregnancy police. Any woman, pregnant or otherwise, who is confronted by religious people should defend herself with any and all force at hand until the threat is no longer present.
I can't wait for a religious conservative man to pass a 15lb. watermelon via their urethra, or even anally. It's the work of God's grace............
It is still a cost if you are paying taxes for schools and other child costs or abortion, you are stuck paying either way
Yes, we all pay property taxes and other taxes to educate the young. As we should. I never claimed that we didn't.
What I would like to see is that every person responsible for bringing a child into the world pays for that child's upbringing. That would be both the mother AND the father.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Does it to you?
Unlikely to happen in many cases. Unreasonable to expect that people will take good care of something they did not want and consider a burden. Many don't have resources or ability to properly raise a child
Then they should get an abortion.
Surely they are at least smart enough to do that?
I never said whether it mattered if the parents wanted the child or not. If they don't want the child, simply don't HAVE the child.
This isn't that hard--either use protection and have fun, or of the protection fails, have an abortion. No unwanted kids that way. And no burden on society supporting what others choose to bring into the world.
Then they should give the child up for adoption. There are a lot of couples who can’t have children willing to adopt.
Number 1 - adoption does not deal with an unwanted pregnancy
Number 2 - women are not responsible to supply children to childless people
That is not your decision or that of anyone but the mothers to make. You keep your nose and your bible off of my ovaries and uterus.
I find it highly hypocritical that you oppose supposed government redistribution of wealth that is an innate part interdependent society, but you have no problem with the government forced the redistribution of infants, after you allow the government and your religious beliefs to trample the intimate medical decisions of others to force her to carry it to term. If you believe that someone, who willingly opened a bakery, should not be forced to bake an LGBT wedding cake against their will, then why should she be forced by your religious beliefs to carry a child against her will when she didn't want to get pregnant?
Evel Knievel could have jumped the Pacific Ocean with that logical leap.
I'd vote this up 20 more times if it were possible.
(Maybe I should pray about that happening.............)
How many are you going to take in, personally? 10? 20? 100? 1000?
Hope you got some deep pockets because every time we turn around YOUR party cuts funding for those babies that you insist MUST be born no matter what.
Women are NOT brood mares for the infertile, there are 100,000s of children in foster care waiting to be adopted.
Am I the reprobate that you are referring to?
We don’t just kill a human life when that human life becomes an inconvenience for us.
It isn't your decision to make if it isn't your body that is gestating it. Your religious rights are not permitted to involve my body because if they did then I have fewer rights than you do and that is inherently unequal.
Approximately 10,000 years of recorded history of human history disagrees with that statement.
I bet you support the death penalty though, don't you?
Beuller.......................Beuller........................Beuller.............?
responsible women do not accidentally get pregnant.
it is not as if how one gets pregnant is some complex unsolvable mystery
All forms of birth control have a known error rate so you cannot blame us because they don't always work, even when used properly.
I can assure you there is no error rate with oral sex when used properly. (and its free)
Wrong, when I got pregnant I was on the pill and we used a condom....oops.
His response is both crude and relies on sexual abstinence which doesn't work as a public policy. Its an expensive failure because of the children that are born, many of them to teens.
Oral sex is not truly abstinence as STD’s are still possible from that. Abstinence is 100% successful in avoiding STD’s and pregnancy every time it’s used. As to accidents that happen even though both are using protection, it does happen from time to time and for woman or couple not financially or emotionally disposed to having an unplanned child, adoption is always the best option.
That is only your opinion, and since you don't have a uterus it is worth as much as I paid to hear it.
It's also 100% unrealistic.
Which only necessitates and highlights the need for access to abortion services.
Why should a woman be required to gestate for 9 months just to serve a childless couple, assuming the child gets adopted at all? Not to mention the woman having to deal with all the possible complications of pregnancy. She certainly would not be able to work and earn an income (thus exacerbating any financial difficulties) if complications do arise or as she approaches the end of her pregnancy and post-pregnancy. It seems many pro-lifers never consider these little details. It's as if you're too tunnel-visioned on the fetus, to the exclusion of anything else.
And yours is only yours and is no more valuable than mine. I guess I could get someone from LifeZette or Concerned Women For America to say it here for me since their uterus is so important to you....
When it comes to making medical choices for herself, her opinion is most certainly more valuable than yours.
I am not telling anyone what she can do with her body or determining her medical choices, unless you and other religious conservatives. You should learn to do likewise.
Your religious views cannot determine the medical care of others. I suggest that conservative groups learn to keep their religious beliefs to themselves and their own bodies unless they want to experience a cultural backlash that will drive religion even further to the fringe. My rights do not need your religious approval!
Yes it is!
That should have read
Unlike you and other religious conservatives.
I'm sorry for the typo.
I don't understand what the pro-lifers believe the benefits of preventing abortion are. I only see benefits of allowing abortions i.e.
Less poor on welfare,
Less money needed for state funded medical care for the poor (Poor women get free care for pregnancy and delivery at tax payer expense)
less drug use from poor children trying to escape their situation through mental alteration,
Less crowded jail from poor committing crimes,
population control which lowers unemployment and boosts the economy,
less strain on the tax payer,
less crowded adoption homes and more children able to be placed in foster care.
Greater future opportunity for the young adult getting the abortion
less need for a social safety net.
less people in general on that safety net allowing it to do more good
more high school graduates
more college graduates
less divorce
happier families
I am sure there are a few dozen more benefit of abortion, what are the benefits of not getting one again?
All good points.
I wish people would simply prevent pregnancies in the first place by having both partners be protected, in case one method fails.
THAT would be ideal. Then you would have less emotional decisions for an expectant mother-to-be to make, less risk from abortion complications, cheaper for the parents, less worrying over where they are going to get money to pay for an abortion, etc.
In cases where the methods fail, abortion is always available.
very good list
That an innocent human being gets a life and a chance to make something out of it rather than being killed before birth.
NOT your uterus NOT your business.
That's just an appeal to emotion. There is no human being and what exactly is it innocent of? Otherwise, what Lady in black said!
I don't understand that
first reaction is: not good enough otherwise we would not be so a militarized nation, all deaths no matter the age would be so disturbing we, as a nation would never engage in any hostile actions in other countries that could result in even one death of our citizens as that person no longer has a chance to "make something of themselves", whatever that means.
second is how many children have you adopted, how much of your time or money have you donated to single, high school, freshmen college, drug addicted, or alcoholic moms so they can finish school, or get into rehab to allow their child to grow up in an environment capable of allowing it to make something of themselves?
Look in your back yard at that prison in Redding and then tell me about being born into a unprepared family or being forced into an unwanted home or underfunded, under educated, and underage home. Bet you at least 80% of the people in that prison came from one of those situations. How much is it costing the tax payer to care for the 90% that do not make something of themselves and continue to drain the social safety nets not only as a child but as an adult. Do the economic benefits of those 10% that actually pull themselves out of the gutter compensate for it...probably not otherwise the right would not be complaining about the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP and other programs directed towards the less fortunate.
Nobody does.
Please stay on the topic of the seed which is the movie documenting the Abby Johnson story, her time at Planned Parenthood, and the events there that caused her to realize what was happening to real babies, and quit to join the pro life movement. That is the topic of the seed.
And it's all lies since she was fired and the abortion she was supposed to witness NEVER happened.
Ah, so now the pro abortionists are going to assassinate the character of Abbey Johnson. How sad that that’s all they have left.
https://mobile.twitter.com/itsjaredlotz/status/1048606409187708928
There are NO pro abortionists.....so the records from the Texas Department of Health have been falsified....sure they have been
You should try to tell the truth for once, as the Bible requires.
There are no pro-abortionists, despite your emotional strawman. You want to mischaracterize others so they don't notice that you aren't pro-life but are instead forced birth because the conservative concern about the welfare of the fetus ends as soon as it is born and becomes an infant with medical, emotional and nutritional needs.
Here let me explain to you what pro choice is...
There are 3 choices:
Birth and keep
Birth and adopt out
Abortion
A woman decides which of these 3 choices are best for her in determining what to do with an unplanned pregnancy. She ALONE decides, not you, not me, NO one but her can make that choice.
Pro choice does not equate to pro abortionist....it equates to a woman DECIDING on her own what is best for her.
Get it now?
caused her to realize what was happening to real babies
Real babies don’t live inside women, real fetuses do.
Some people and doctors prefer to call them babies.
Heather Rupe, DO, is a board-certified OB/GYN
That's not a guarantee. Such a charge depends on the stage of gestation, individual state laws, the circumstances surrounding the death, and whether a prosecutor pushes for such a charge.
That doesn't mean they actually are babies. Such a reference is more of a layman reference and an emotional appeal or connection.
Because the person who killed the mother took away her right of choice. Only the mother has the right to end a pregnancy. When the pregnancy is ended by others or against her wishes it is considered murder by the justice system.
It's amazing how many people do not seem to understand that point.
Many people stop learning at 18 or 22, and they also tend to be emotionally driven instead of being logical thinkers.
She can use the term baby with her clients but science is very clear that it is a fetus.
Probably because they do not want to learn. Especially if what they might learn conflicts with their beliefs or preconceived notions.
Exactly. The abortion argument is a perfect example of that.
Then entire film is a lie and you wanted to fall for it
““For women that have not had abortions or children or young girls that are considering it, we want them to realize that this is a baby,” the pro-life director asserted. “You have to contemplate that. You cannot buy into the myth of the media and of Planned Parenthood that it's not a baby.”“