XPost: alt.abortion, alt.atheism, alt.flame.jesus.christ   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion   
   From: mark.richardson@die.spammers.die   
      
   On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:51:57 -0400, St. Jackanapes   
    wrote:   
      
   >   
   >In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Mark Richardson said...   
   >   
   >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:03:06 -0700, Nivlem  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >> >Mark Richardson wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >>On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:01:00 -0700, Nivlem  wrote:   
   >> >>   
   >> >>   
   >> >>   
   >> >>>The only conceivable reason to take an anti-abortion stance would be a   
   >> >>>particular set of religious beliefs.   
   >> >>>Absent this, a non-self-aware,   
   >> >>>non-viable fetus has no reason to be of any concern. This site is a   
   >> >>>spoof, right?   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>I don't think so.   
   >> >>You can be an atheist and hold something as precious or "holy".   
   >> >>You don't believe that "holiness" resides in a being called god.   
   >> >>   
   >> >>So its conceivable that you hold all (animal?) life holy - even non   
   >> >>   
   >> >>   
   >> >>sentient life.   
   >> >>   
   >> >Not and be a logically consistant atheist, you can't.   
   >> Well I must disagree.   
   >> There are some things that logic simply has nothing to say about.   
   >>   
   >> >No god, no   
   >> >supernatural anything, for the same reasons that gods are ruled out.   
   >> I agree with that - but what if its holy in a non supernatural way?   
   >> Or if you dont like holy use another word - english is full of 'em.   
   >> "Sacred" is another.   
   >>   
   >> > No   
   >> >concept of "holiness" to be applied. Believing otherwise is to be   
   >> >confused. The fetus has no rights that must be respected. It's   
   >> >essentially a sort of parasite on the mother.   
   >>   
   >> In the same sense that you or I am a "parasite" on the earths   
   >> ecosystem?   
   >> Calling something a "parasite" doesn;t change what it is - it adds   
   >> nothing to the discussion either way.   
   >>   
   >> >Her rights and wishes in   
   >> >the matter are paramount. There can be no logical grounds to interfere   
   >> >in her decision whether to carry to term or terminate a pregnancy.   
   >> >Sorry, but I can only see an anti-abortion stance as an intellectually   
   >> >dishonest abuse of women.   
   >> >   
   >> I can see it that way - just not 100% of the time - but i am not an   
   >> all or nothing, Black and White, kind of guy. I see shades of gray.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> >>   
   >> >>I am pro choice - but I am uncomfortable with the level and extent of   
   >> >>abortions.   
   >> >>I am all for sex education and teaching kids to be responsible.   
   >> >>   
   >> >>I am not for forcing kids to become parents when they are not   
   >> >>responsible (that's just stoopid!)   
   >> >>(two wrongs don't make a right.)   
   >> >>   
   >> >>I feel uneasy about killing a spider unnecessarily - I capture them   
   >> >>and take them outside.   
   >> >>We *should* feel uneasy/unhappy about unnecessary killing - of   
   >> >>spiders, cats dogs, chickens and human fetuses.   
   >> >>   
   >> >   
   >> >Which one of these things is not like the other? All save the human   
   >> >fetus can walk around and feed themselves. Also, what do you view as   
   >> >necessary killing? I have no problem whatsoever with killing chickens to   
   >> >eat. I also don't know of anyone who undertook to have an abortion   
   >> >because there was nothing on TV. It looks to me as if women are   
   >> >biologically programmed to keep the pregnancy. There have to be very   
   >> >good reasons to override that.   
   >> >   
   >> I understand all that. I am pro choice too.   
   >> I was trying (and failing!) to give you a hint about *idea* of life   
   >> being sacred.   
   >> That things can have an intrinsic value beyond utility/threat.   
   >>   
   >> It seems to me that humans are capable of responses to things in the   
   >> world beyond kill it, eat it, or shag it.   
   >> 8-)   
   >>   
   >> Mark.   
   >   
   >Have you ever watched an abortion, Mark?   
      
   No, luckily   
      
   >I got to a few years back after   
   >knocking up yet another female. They had a clear hose that came out of   
   >her cunt, went to a pump, and then through another clear tube and then   
   >into what looked like a Hellman's mayonnaise jar. As it filled with red   
   >fluid, all I could think was that I wished I hadn't left my pint of   
   >vodka out in the car. I'm sure the godless Hindu wog doing the abortion   
   >wouldn't have minded one bit if I'd made myself a very special Bloody   
   >Mary.   
      
   Oh. Right.   
   Am I supposed to say something now?   
      
   That "godless Hindu wog" bit was probably the most offensive bit of   
   your post - but it was all quite offensive.   
      
   Mark.   
      
   --   
   Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau   
      
   "My name is Mark I am a recovering Skeptic   
   (AKA Muddy Boggs, AKA Donald R. Alford AKA ...)   
   debater. It is 037 days since I last tried to argue   
   with him."   
      
   You too can quit! Take the pledge!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)