Liberals being Pro-Choice :/

Mark200

yutta wrote: »

As a computer scientist with a degree from the best computer science department in the world, I can say this: God has gifted each one of us with unique talents. The Internet has come about as a direct result of God-given talents. If God didn't create Tim Berners-Lee, the Internet today might look very different indeed.

If that's the way you think, then why do you think your god created Hitler and other oppressive dictators. Eg Kim Jong Il and his father

Mark200

Mark200 wrote: »

If that's the way you think, then why do you think your god created Hitler and other oppressive dictators. Eg Kim Jong Il and his father

Don't be silly, the bad things are from free will. obviously.

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

What goes on in the animal kingdom is no basis for morality amongst humans. Inter-species intercourse, anal sex, incestuous relationships amongst other things all occur naturally in nature. This doesn't make it moral.

Yutta, can I ask where you are from/were raised?

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

Who created the "he"?

So basically when a human does something extraordinary and wonderful, it's God's work, but when they do something "bad" (?) it's their free will at work? Am I getting that right?



Your head must be a very happy and simple place....

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

The evidence for God is all around us. All you have to do is look up at the sky at night time and you will see his handiwork.

Nonsense. What you are doing here is circular. You simply declare something was made by god, and hence it is evidence for god. How do you know? Because you have declared that there is a god and he made that something. How do you know there is a god? Because you have declared that the something was made by god and so is..... on and on and on. circular.

This is not evidence, this is just confirmation bias and nonsense. Things are not evidence for god solely because you say they are and simply saying that the existence of god is "undeniable" does not magically mean there is one. You are simply making things up. Made up things have no place in a conversation thread on abortion. Let us stick to the facts we actually do have.

yutta wrote: »

It's not surprising that you hold opinions that the killing innocent human life is morally ok.

I quite like the position of "innocent until proven guilty". It is one of the precepts I operate on. Thus.... given you have not adumbrated a single argument to suggest abortion is morally wrong, I do not think it is morally wrong. Innocent until proven guilty as I said.

Maybe if, instead of hiding behind labels, insults, and imaginary gods, you were to actually present some fact (not fantasy) based arguments to establish the moral wrong of abortion my position would be changed. Your snide insults and obsessive labeling however will do no such thing and likely harms your cause more than helps it in the eyes of those reading your words.

yutta wrote: »

Here we go - point hopping.

You have been the only point hopper on the thread and it has been pointed out already. I am hardly point hoping given this has been my point ALL ALONG. The point being that those who advocate access to abortion are also often those that also advocate doing all the things that will reduce the requirement for it. Sex education and increased access to contraception being two prime examples of that. The image you want to paint of the pro choice advocate being someone who wants as many abortions performed as possible is just baseless propaganda and does not match reality.

I see no citations or evidence to back up your fantasy that Condoms were in any way causally linked to increased in STDs in this country. I would love to see your studies establishing this fact in ireland. Do they exist or are you just making stuff up?

I certainly see no argument to back up the assertion that sex education should be kept out of schools either or why it should be the sole purview of parents.

Can you back up either of these assertions please or are they just personal opinion? Hard to say as you often offer opinion as if it was fact.

yutta wrote: »

In my guesstimate, more sexual activity (facilitated by prophylactics) results in more pregnancies, not the other way around.

At least you acknowledge this is only a guess and not based on any fact.

Given condoms for example are at worst 90% effective, you can easily work out just how much MORE sex people would have to have in order to break even in terms of the numbers of pregnancies, let alone to increase the number of them! Same thing for STDs. I think you will find that the number of times you would have to have sex using condoms to be statistically just as likely to become pregnant or catch an STD is a bit larger than you are even physically capable of performing, no matter what kind of stallion you might want to think you are in the bedroom.

There are plenty of statistics on the effect of such things on pregnancy and STD. Less pregnancies will of course mean less abortions. There are studies on that too.

yutta wrote: »

Is there some moral issue with heart bypasses that we're not aware of?

None that I am aware of. You do know what an analogy is right?

yutta wrote: »

You should be aware the Catholic position on sex by now.

I am aware of the catholic position on many things. I am aware of your position too. It is not WHAT your positions are that I am interested in. I know that already. It is whether those positions have any basis or argument to support them. Thus far aside from name calling and label use, you appear to have neither.

yutta wrote: »

How arrogant of you to assume that the basis to life can be explained using the man-made scientific method.

And how arrogant of you to assume that it cannot, that there is something about us that will always remain unexplained or special. We are just animals living in a physical world and the physical sciences are doing quite a nice job of explaining more and more each day of every aspect of that physical world. The fertilised human cell is just a single cell with a bit of human DNA in it and a few other materials. That is all. The only arrogance here is in assuming that it is... or needs to be.... anything more than that.

To our minds it is complex of course. How it works and what it does is massively interesting and complicated and yes even awe inspiring. That does not make it special really. It is only special because we feel it is. At the end of the day it is just a string of protein and no more.

You underestimate just how much we know on the subject. Rather than harping on that no scientist in the world understands it, actually sit down and read some books on embryology. There are many. It is an interesting subject with much to learn, and just pretending we do not know the things we actually do know will make those books and information go away.

yutta wrote: »

What goes on in the animal kingdom is no basis for morality amongst humans.

Did I ever claim it was? No.

I merely pointed out that there is much to be learned about sex and what it is "for" by looking at the animals. I said nothing about morality. Please keep your words out of my mouth. The length of my posts should indicate I have more than enough of my own.

What we learn from both human and animal behaviour and physiology is that sex is "for" more than just reproduction. It is heavily associated with partner bonding, social cohesion and more. That was all I said, so you can keep your strawman to yourself.

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nonsense. What you are doing here is circular. You simply declare something was made by god, and hence it is evidence for god. How do you know? Because you have declared that there is a god and he made that something. How do you know there is a god? Because you have declared that the something was made by god and so is..... on and on and on. circular.

You can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink. Fine, if you insist on there being no God, I won't think any less of you as a human person. I don't know why you bother continuing in life if life is nothing but a cosmic dance.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is not evidence, this is just confirmation bias and nonsense. Things are not evidence for god solely because you say they are and simply saying that the existence of god is "undeniable" does not magically mean there is one. You are simply making things up. Made up things have no place in a conversation thread on abortion. Let us stick to the facts we actually do have.

The fact is that you are alive. The fact is that you will die one day. When you are on your death bed, perhaps you will think a little bit more about the possibility that there is a God. You are a clever bloke and obviously have some limited knowledge of the Christian viewpoint. This is a very dangerous thing, since you will not be able to plead ignorance at the pearly gates. You have been warned.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I quite like the position of "innocent until proven guilty". It is one of the precepts I operate on. Thus.... given you have not adumbrated a single argument to suggest abortion is morally wrong, I do not think it is morally wrong. Innocent until proven guilty as I said.

Abortion is morally wrong because it's killing innocent life. That's a pretty solid argument for maintaining its illegality in this country. Have you or have you ever had a hand in an abortion yourself?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Maybe if, instead of hiding behind labels, insults, and imaginary gods, you were to actually present some fact (not fantasy) based arguments to establish the moral wrong of abortion my position would be changed. Your snide insults and obsessive labeling however will do no such thing and likely harms your cause more than helps it in the eyes of those reading your words.

If you think I've come on here to insult you, you might want to think again. So drop the persecution complex and listen for once in your life. I've a funny feeling that you have played a part in an abortion of your own and you are offended by my "opinions', which is very different to me insulting you. In the eyes of those reading my words, they see that the current liberal status quo has many flaws in it. It is not to be just swallowed hook line and sinker - there are serious flaws to it. The fact is that pretty much all abortions are for lifestyle reasons. That is morally wrong. To say that a woman can kill her own flesh and blood for the sake of a few sheckles or for the sake of her career is nothing short of sickening. And obviously so.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You have been the only point hopper on the thread and it has been pointed out already. I am hardly point hoping given this has been my point ALL ALONG. The point being that those who advocate access to abortion are also often those that also advocate doing all the things that will reduce the requirement for it. Sex education and increased access to contraception being two prime examples of that. The image you want to paint of the pro choice advocate being someone who wants as many abortions performed as possible is just baseless propaganda and does not match reality.

You have done your fair share of point hopping, dragging this discussion into that of teen pregnancies and contraception. Surely you are aware of the Catholic position on these matters? If not, I suggest a cursory glance at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The problem I have with you is this: I don't know what your moral position on abortion actually is. You have no reference material which I can work off of and you have quoted no authors or studies. Therefore, I can only assume that you, as an individual, have made up all these moral standpoints yourself. Many brains are better than one, and I can tell you that your opinions and morals are no match for the might of the Catholic Church who have, incidentally, spent a lot of time thinking these matters through (far more time than you have spent I can assure you.)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see no citations or evidence to back up your fantasy that Condoms were in any way causally linked to increased in STDs in this country. I would love to see your studies establishing this fact in ireland. Do they exist or are you just making stuff up?

How common were STDs in the 1950s do you think? Back then, people who had sex had a good chance of making a baby. Therefore they abstained since to have sex was to procreate. The pill and contraceptives have done untold damage to this country and to people's lives - STDs, "unwanted" pregnancies, abortion, AIDS and all kinds of nasty psychological side-effects.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I certainly see no argument to back up the assertion that sex education should be kept out of schools either or why it should be the sole purview of parents.

There you go point-hopping again. Sex education should at the the very least be kept out of primary schools. In second level schools, a certain amount of sex education is no harm, so long as it's rooted in sound moral principles. You wish to keep religion out of the State. Well, how about keeping the State out of religious education.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

At least you acknowledge this is only a guess and not based on any fact.

Are you trying to deny that prophylactics and the "pill" didn't coincide with an explosion in STDs, AIDS and unwanted pregnancies leading to abortion?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Given condoms for example are at worst 90% effective, you can easily work out just how much MORE sex people would have to have in order to break even in terms of the numbers of pregnancies, let alone to increase the number of them! Same thing for STDs. I think you will find that the number of times you would have to have sex using condoms to be statistically just as likely to become pregnant or catch an STD is a bit larger than you are even physically capable of performing, no matter what kind of stallion you might want to think you are in the bedroom.

Condoms may be 90% "effective", but condoms aren't always used. The dogma that you (and people with opinions like yours) propogate through society is that sex is for self-gratification. Condoms aren't always used and when people think that they can just go and get an abortion (i.e. using abortion as some kind of contraceptive), people like you have blood on their hands to a certain degree since you (clever, manipulative people like you) have normalised this behaviour and encouraged them to kill their own flesh and blood.

There are plenty of statistics on the effect of such things on pregnancy and STD. Less pregnancies will of course mean less abortions. There are studies on that too.

Thank you for that information. How enlightening - "less pregnancies will of course mean less abortions"... How about I put it this way for you: less promiscuity will of course mean less abortions. Less people with opinions like yours will mean a better society that is rooted in strong family values and Christian ethics.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am aware of the catholic position on many things. I am aware of your position too. It is not WHAT your positions are that I am interested in. I know that already. It is whether those positions have any basis or argument to support them. Thus far aside from name calling and label use, you appear to have neither.

Of course you do. Of course you, some random anonymous punter on the interweb with no publication track-record, know better than the Catholic Church.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And how arrogant of you to assume that it cannot, that there is something about us that will always remain unexplained or special. We are just animals living in a physical world and the physical sciences are doing quite a nice job of explaining more and more each day of every aspect of that physical world. The fertilised human cell is just a single cell with a bit of human DNA in it and a few other materials. That is all. The only arrogance here is in assuming that it is... or needs to be.... anything more than that.

Sounds very nihilistic to me. And your scientific description for the infusion of life into a bunch of cells is just that: arrogant. Are you even a scientist?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To our minds it is complex of course. How it works and what it does is massively interesting and complicated and yes even awe inspiring. That does not make it special really. It is only special because we feel it is. At the end of the day it is just a string of protein and no more.

Thank you. "Awe inspiring". I think I've moved you, by pure reason alone, one step closer to the truth. Much work yet to be done.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You underestimate just how much we know on the subject. Rather than harping on that no scientist in the world understands it, actually sit down and read some books on embryology. There are many. It is an interesting subject with much to learn, and just pretending we do not know the things we actually do know will make those books and information go away.

You over-estimate just how much we know on this subject. For every question that we know the answer to, there are an infinite number of questions that we don't know the answer to and an infinite number of questions again that we haven't even thought up yet. Your littlel scientific world, while it must be very comforting for you, is nothing short of a comfort blanket against the realities of a God-created universe.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I merely pointed out that there is much to be learned about sex and what it is "for" by looking at the animals. I said nothing about morality. Please keep your words out of my mouth. The length of my posts should indicate I have more than enough of my own.

If you're looking to the animal kingdom for lessons about sex, then you're in for a nasty surprise. How do you explain incestuous relationships? I suppose two consenting adults engaging in sterile sex (i.e. contraception) is morally ok in your book?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What we learn from both human and animal behaviour and physiology is that sex is "for" more than just reproduction. It is heavily associated with partner bonding, social cohesion and more. That was all I said, so you can keep your strawman to yourself.

The unitive and procreative bond of sex is one of the most beautiful things on earth. It's not for abuse. If you eat a load of food and then go and stick your fingers down your throat so you can eat more, that's morally wrong as it's self-gratuitous and wasteful. Same goes for sex with contraceptives, anal sex, sex with animals, etc.

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

Abortion is morally wrong because it's killing innocent life. That's a pretty solid argument for maintaining its illegality in this country. Have you or have you ever had a hand in an abortion yourself?

I haven't had one myself, but helped get a friend abroad to procure one. I regret nothing, nor does she. She's gone on to find great success and happiness, and would not have been able to live her current life had she gone ahead with the pregnancy.

yutta wrote: »

Back then, people who had sex had a good chance of making a baby. Therefore they abstained since to have sex was to procreate.

Yep, cos we had empty orphanages and Magdalene Laundries up and down the country.
Get real, we had plenty of unwanted pregnancies. You know what the lovely RCC did to the women involved? Persecuted, tortured and scarred them.

yutta wrote: »

There you go point-hopping again. Sex education should at the the very least be kept out of primary schools. In second level schools, a certain amount of sex education is no harm, so long as it's rooted in sound moral principles. You wish to keep religion out of the State. Well, how about keeping the State out of religious education.

Are you off your rocker? What about explaining puberty to kids? I was still in primary school when I got my 1st period, how the hell do you think I'd have felt if it hadn't been explained to me?

the_syco

philologos wrote: »

As for your claim that scientific proofs show there is no God, that couldn't be any more wrong. Unless you're willing to show this is the case, I think any rational person should take that with a pinch of salt.

Like Superman, there's no proof that your god never existed, or if he has ever existed in reality...

yutta wrote: »

The evidence for God is all around us.

The evidence for God is everywhere. Look at 1940's Germany. He gave us Hitler who wiped out a few million people, look at Vietnam where there was a bloody conflict look at... oh wait, you only claim that the good things were done by your god, and everything else was done by humans?

old hippy wrote: »

The internet came about as a direct result of scientists larking about and getting it right, all the way back in '69, iirc.

That's one way to see it. Another way is that the foundation of the internet was created by the military to ensure it's leaders could communicate after a nuclear strike.

yutta

the_syco wrote: »

The evidence for God is everywhere. Look at 1940's Germany. He gave us Hitler who wiped out a few million people, look at Vietnam where there was a bloody conflict look at... oh wait, you only claim that the good things were done by your god, and everything else was done by humans?

You talk about one of the greatest theological questions that is: "Why did God create the world at all if there is to be so much suffering?" And many atheists/nihilists/whatever pass-off biblical creation and indeed the existence of God on such philosophical grounds.

But you must ask how God could allow for love without the potential for evil? God could have created robots that do nothing more than forever say, "I love you, I love you, I love you." Such beings would be incapable of any kind of real love. Love is a choice, and the Bible says that God desires a real love relationship with His creation. Love is not real unless we have the ability to not love.

God knew that in a world with much choice, there would be much evil: to choose not to love is evil by definition. However, there would also be the capacity for real love. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga once wrote that "An all loving, all powerful, all knowing Being could permit as much evil as He pleased without forfeiting His claim to being all loving, so long as for every evil state of affairs He permits there is an accompanying greater good".

The potential for love outweighs the existence of evil, especially if evil can only exist for a time. Evil is a side effect of love. Suffering and death are a side effect of evil.

Of course if you refute the existence of God, you won't find much truth in the above, although you might get some insight as to where Christians come from.

mloc

Yuttta wrote:

Sex education should at the the very least be kept out of primary schools. In second level schools, a certain amount of sex education is no harm, so long as it's rooted in sound moral principles. You wish to keep religion out of the State. Well, how about keeping the State out of religious education.

What has religion got to do with sex education? If you want to have a religious aspect to sex education, do it in a church where people turn up voluntarily.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

Don't be silly, the bad things are from free will. obviously.

yutta wrote: »

God could have created robots that do nothing more than forever say, "I love you, I love you, I love you." Such beings would be incapable of any kind of real love. Love is a choice

told ye

Ghost Buster

yutta wrote: »

The evidence for God is all around us. ,

Really, here on a planet so well created that it took aeons of years of evolution to survive upon in a universe which is totally hostile to us, His creation?
Im convinced.
Praise the lord

RichieC

I'm getting bad skin from all the facepalms this thread is giving me...

RichieC

yutta wrote: »

God knew that in a world with much choice, there would be much evil: to choose not to love is evil by definition. However, there would also be the capacity for real love. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga once wrote that "An all loving, all powerful, all knowing Being could permit as much evil as He pleased without forfeiting His claim to being all loving, so long as for every evil state of affairs He permits there is an accompanying greater good". .

You call people who aren't religious arrogant and yet you sit there telling everyone what god thinks... how the bloody hell would you know what god thinks about anything?

Snakeblood

yutta wrote: »

Such beings would be incapable of any kind of real love. Love is a choice, and the Bible says that God desires a real love relationship with His creation.

Sounds a bit paedoey, frankly.

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

You can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink. Fine, if you insist on there being no God, I won't think any less of you as a human person. I don't know why you bother continuing in life if life is nothing but a cosmic dance.

Horse to water? So you are now trotting out cliches? Are you that devoid of evidence? First labels, then insults, and now cliches? You really will pull every linguistic trick in the book to avoid substantiating a single thing you say won't you? Suffice it to say, trotting out vague threats about my death bed is not evidence. It is the opposite. It is copping out of giving evidence.

As for reasons to living, I think you have derailed this thread enough. If you want to know how and why atheists and the like find meaning in life then simply check out the Atheist Forum on boards. There are whole threads on the subject. In short: Such people appear to have no issue at all with finding meaning in life or reasons to go on. In fact the very existence of so many such people who are living on should be telling you that it is you that is missing something, not them.

yutta wrote: »

Abortion is morally wrong because it's killing innocent life.

Says you, but in terms/context of human rights you have not established there is a life there being killed. It is just cells with human DNA. Cancer is just cells with human DNA too and we do our best to kill that. When we are talking about "innocent life" in the context of killing, murder and human rights we are not talking about cells with DNA. We are talking about a human person with consciousness, subjective experience, humanity.... none of which a 20 week old fetus has. It does not even have the elements used to produce those things, let alone those things themselves.

yutta wrote: »

If you think I've come on here to insult you, you might want to think again.

Never claimed any such thing. I can see why you have come here. To espouse an anti abortion position. The insults, labels, cliches and religious rhetoric are just what you hide behind due to your lack of any actual rational reality based arguments to use on the subject. You simply attack labels like "liberal" instead of dealing with anything a given user has actually said to you.

yutta wrote: »

Surely you are aware of the Catholic position on these matters?

You already said this and I already replied. Not sure why you need to keep repeating yourself. Please read post #456 again as this was covered. You are so desperate to point hop now you are hoping back to things already covered not one post ago.

yutta wrote: »

I don't know what your moral position on abortion actually is.

I have been as clear on what it is as I can be, I am not sure how to dumb it down and further for you. My position once again is as follows:

I think in terms of innocent until proven guilty. As such since I have not heard a single argument suggesting abortions are morally wrong I defend/fight for peoples right to have one if and when they want. I see no reason to assign human rights to a zygote or fetus and as such I do not think they require protection from termination.

At the same time I recognise the procedure is difficult, unpleasant and emotionally distressful and although I wish people to have the option if and when they want it, I recognise the need to also work on reducing the requirement by reducing unwanted pregnancies through education, awareness and contraception.

How can I make it any clearer than that?

yutta wrote: »

How common were STDs in the 1950s do you think?

You tell me. You are the one claiming that the introduction of condoms has some causal link with the increase in STDs and "psychological side effects". So you cite the figures and studies to support this claim. It is your claim not mine. I am not about to do your research for you. Especially as I am aware of NO supporting material to substantiate such wild claims. They appear to be fantasy and personal opinion.

yutta wrote: »

Sex education should at the the very least be kept out of primary schools.

Repeating your point is not substantiating it. You said this already. I did not ask you to repeat it. I asked you WHY you suggest it. Is it just your opinion or have you any arguments or studies to actually substantiate it. Or are you going to make wild fantasy claims again like with condoms that increased sexual education increased STDs and psychological side effects?

yutta wrote: »

Condoms may be 90% "effective", but condoms aren't always used.

My point exactly! An increase in their use will reduce STDs and pregnancies. Not increase them. The 90% figure is an "at worst" figure. In fact the accepted figure these days is 98%.

If your best argument against condoms is that they are not always used, then your position is weaker than I thought. The fact they are not used enough is EXACTLY The kind of issue we need to address.

And you and I agree that a reduction in promiscuity is also a good thing. That is why sexual education is important too. A reduction in promiscuity is not some catholic ideal that only they thought of. It is just a good idea.

Of course you do. Of course you, some random anonymous punter on the interweb with no publication track-record, know better than the Catholic Church.

yutta wrote: »

your scientific description for the infusion of life into a bunch of cells is just that: arrogant.

Yet that is all they are. You can name call all you want, but that will not magically make a clump of cells containing protein into anything else BUT a clump of cells containing protein. You can stomp, curse, insult, act snide or throw out cliches all day but that fact will not change. You can wish and wish and wish for them to be something more special than that, but they will still be the same thing. The only arrogance here is in thinking humans have to be so special that we have to treat every aspect of them, even zygotes, as if there is something magical about them. THe science position on this is not arrogant. It is simply calling a spade a spade and recognizing things for what they are.

yutta wrote: »

incestuous relationships?

Point hoping again. I will not bite. This is a thread about abortion. If you want to discuss incest on this thread you can do it with someone else. If you want to discuss it with me then go to one of the threads I have already covered it on and reply to me there. I will not feed your desperate need to keep derailing the subject any more.

dr.bollocko

mod:
We're really circling the drain here. I would suspect a lock is incoming soon.

the_syco

yutta wrote: »

Suffering and death are a side effect of evil.

Actually, suffering and evil are by side effects of religion, and death is a side effect of living.

dr.bollocko

Aaaand we're done.

For this week.