On Being Atheist...

[amicus]

1sickbastard, Lovecraft...some science for you:

Every scientist and every biologist in the entire civilized world agrees that human life is created at the moment of conception. It can be nothing else.

The United States fought a Civil War and Amended the Constitution for the 14th time, to bestow 'personage' on Negro slaves, hitherto not acknowledged to be a 'person', in the eyes of the Law.

Within the past few days, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, I think, the City of Brotherly Love, a 'late term abortionist' was arrested and when they investigated the building, the abortion shop, they found the remains of hundreds of near full term babies, in parts, heads severed at the spinal cord, feet cut off and put in garbage bags, torso's asunder in trash cans, hundreds and hundreds of them.

This is what you stand for? This reflects your moral character?

The psycho-babble over what a 'person' is and when they become one, is a false argument and a poor one to include in your ethical repertoire.

The abortion rate among Blacks in America is five times what it is for Whites, Hispanics are twice what the Whites are; if only the Caucasian rates were recorded, the rate would be much lower than it appears to be and still, even one abortion is one to many in an humane world.

Morality is not a whimsical choice of human actions based on spur of the moment decisions; it is an ethical science, a division of philosophy that should be paid more heed than it is.

When you have or advocate an abortion, you are either committing, or an accessory to, first degree pre-meditated murder and it never goes away.

Amicus

 

[tetriscera]

I have been following this thread, and it has been rather interesting so far to see the points of yourself and other posters here. I may comment on your OP's points at some time but I would like to address these points before anything else.

Every scientist and every biologist in the entire civilized world agrees that human life is created at the moment of conception. It can be nothing else.

The United States fought a Civil War and Amended the Constitution for the 14th time, to bestow 'personage' on Negro slaves, hitherto not acknowledged to be a 'person', in the eyes of the Law.

Within the past few days, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, I think, the City of Brotherly Love, a 'late term abortionist' was arrested and when they investigated the building, the abortion shop, they found the remains of hundreds of near full term babies, in parts, heads severed at the spinal cord, feet cut off and put in garbage bags, torso's asunder in trash cans, hundreds and hundreds of them.

This is what you stand for? This reflects your moral character?

The psycho-babble over what a 'person' is and when they become one, is a false argument and a poor one to include in your ethical repertoire.

The abortion rate among Blacks in America is five times what it is for Whites, Hispanics are twice what the Whites are; if only the Caucasian rates were recorded, the rate would be much lower than it appears to be and still, even one abortion is one to many in an humane world.

Morality is not a whimsical choice of human actions based on spur of the moment decisions; it is an ethical science, a division of philosophy that should be paid more heed than it is.

When you have or advocate an abortion, you are either committing, or an accessory to, first degree pre-meditated murder and it never goes away.

I was not surprised to witness that you recommended Ayn Rand's nonfictional works as future reading material for a fellow poster, because I sensed Rand's influence throughout your posts with the language and argumentation you espoused. I have read most of her philosophy writings myself. Which is why I am interested in your apparent divergence from her thoughts on the subject of abortion. I will quote two passages of Ayn Rand on this subject:

"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?" -Ayn Rand

“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.” -Ayn Rand

With those examples in mind, I want to inquire as to why you differ from her position on this subject, and also do you diverge from her on many other ethical views that she held?

 

[Pure]

Pure, Post 149, rethink that, rewrite that, with attention paid to 'sentient', self awareness and see where you end up. Values, ethics, morals, arise only from sentient, self aware critters, not rocks & toads & bean sprouts.

I never suggest a falling rock has a moral purpose, why do you?

Amicus

====

ami, all your examples in your earlier post were far below human; your examples included galaxies and bean sprouts. since you don't follow through with your own thought, here, i presume you concede there is NO inherent purpose, so far as we know, in any of your examples

since you don't convince me about 'inherent purpose' in lowly objects and plants, i have no reason to think you have any case for Man's purpose. it is true that some "Men" some of the time are rational, but why exercize of rationality is "Man's" inherent purpose, i'd like to hear your evidence and reasoning.




ami, earlier

My immediate response would be that 'life has its' own inherent purpose', independent from but related to all aspects of existence, macro and micro.

Let me expand that concept to the natural existence of planet Earth and our Sun, a 'Star' by definition, our Solar system, our Galaxy. Each has a beginning and an end, and each has its' own 'purpose', in terms of its' own existence and within the infinite existence of the Universe.

The more man learns about the physical characteristics of the entirety of the Universe, we discover the interrelationship between 'Star Nurseries' Star birth and growth, life and death of Stars and Star Clusters, Galaxies and even the shape and form of Galaxies; all have their internal reason and purpose for existence, defined by the characteristics of each entity.

I do not find inference of 'divine' creation in a bean sprout in my garden; I do sense an innate drive, an imperative for fullfillment of purpose contained in the bean seed, a potential awaiting birth, again, with no purpose other than its' own existence within the possible paramenters of individual existence.

 

[Pure]

Posters!

Please do not cooperate in turning every thread into a abortion debate. Let those debaters start their own thread.

 

[lovecraft68]

1sickbastard, Lovecraft...some science for you:

Every scientist and every biologist in the entire civilized world agrees that human life is created at the moment of conception. It can be nothing else.

The United States fought a Civil War and Amended the Constitution for the 14th time, to bestow 'personage' on Negro slaves, hitherto not acknowledged to be a 'person', in the eyes of the Law.

Within the past few days, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, I think, the City of Brotherly Love, a 'late term abortionist' was arrested and when they investigated the building, the abortion shop, they found the remains of hundreds of near full term babies, in parts, heads severed at the spinal cord, feet cut off and put in garbage bags, torso's asunder in trash cans, hundreds and hundreds of them.

This is what you stand for? This reflects your moral character?

The psycho-babble over what a 'person' is and when they become one, is a false argument and a poor one to include in your ethical repertoire.

The abortion rate among Blacks in America is five times what it is for Whites, Hispanics are twice what the Whites are; if only the Caucasian rates were recorded, the rate would be much lower than it appears to be and still, even one abortion is one to many in an humane world.

Morality is not a whimsical choice of human actions based on spur of the moment decisions; it is an ethical science, a division of philosophy that should be paid more heed than it is.

When you have or advocate an abortion, you are either committing, or an accessory to, first degree pre-meditated murder and it never goes away.

Amicus

No need to get all riled up. My bottom line is it's the womans right . that doesn't mean that in certain circumstances I have to like it is all I'm saying.

 

[stephen55]

I was not surprised to witness that you recommended Ayn Rand's nonfictional works as future reading material for a fellow poster, because I sensed Rand's influence throughout your posts with the language and argumentation you espoused. I have read most of her philosophy writings myself. Which is why I am interested in your apparent divergence from her thoughts on the subject of abortion. I will quote two passages of Ayn Rand on this subject:

tetriscera, welcome to Lit and the Authors' Hangout.

There are a lot of interesting people here. If you stick around (and I hope you do) you will get to know them and will be able to predict the general tone of several of them. Let's just say that some of them have defining characteristics and you won't be able to get them to budge on anything if you used dynamite, instead of words.

Amicus (ami to most of us) is one such character. You're trying to engage him in a discussion by pointing out an error in his thinking (by using Ayn Rand's own quotes to point out why he shouldn't bring up her in a discussion about abortion).

To ami, such a thing does not, never has and never will exist. When you point out to ami that one or more of his arguments don't hold water, one of two things will happen. He will ignore it or he will come back and call you a soulless socialist, a usual suspect, a brainless minion of the intellectually bankrupt left or anyone of his dozen or so favorite epithets. When he gets wound up, he'll use about half a dozen in the space of two sentences.

It's up to you how you deal with the guy. From personal experience I know that using fact and reason won't get you very far.

 

[1sickbastard]

With those examples in mind, I want to inquire as to why you differ from her position on this subject, and also do you diverge from her on many other ethical views that she held?[/FONT]

Amicus is simply using his superior intellect to logically and rationally ignore any idea that does not fit within his worldview.
That way he doesn't have to deal with the consequences of accepting the possibility that he could be WRONG.

 

[amicus]

I have been following this thread, and it has been rather interesting so far to see the points of yourself and other posters here. I may comment on your OP's points at some time but I would like to address these points before anything else.



I was not surprised to witness that you recommended Ayn Rand's nonfictional works as future reading material for a fellow poster, because I sensed Rand's influence throughout your posts with the language and argumentation you espoused. I have read most of her philosophy writings myself. Which is why I am interested in your apparent divergence from her thoughts on the subject of abortion. I will quote two passages of Ayn Rand on this subject:

"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?" -Ayn Rand

“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.” -Ayn Rand

With those examples in mind, I want to inquire as to why you differ from her position on this subject, and also do you diverge from her on many other ethical views that she held?[/FONT]

~~~

Hello, Tetriscera, welcome to the forum and thank you for a well presented and thoughtful query. Tetris....would that be from the game? I think it was Dr. Mario, a similar game, that I enjoyed and played for hours reaching level 25, when there are only 20 levels on that game...perhaps some will remember...

Should I dare to quote Rand, I am usually referred to as a 'Randroid', with Objectivism being called a 'cult', and Rand being disparaged at every turn.

When I offer a difference from Rand's thinking, then the presumption is that I do not understand her thoughts. At one time I was familiar enough with Rand's thinking to offer classes in Objectivism, but that has been nearly a half century ago when I wore a younger man's clothes....(song)

Aristotle is usually acknowledged as the 'father of knowledge', in that he was first to consistently apply scientific method to his observations of reality, to nature, to the physical objects he could take in hand and measure and then cognitively classify and categorize and arrange into rational order in his mind.

But Aristotle was wrong in his geocentric cosmology, that the Earth was the center of the Universe. It took about 1500 years before his thinking was challenged and found to be lacking in scientific fact and observation.

In the context of the time of Aristotle, (384 BC – 322 BC), one can but admire his magnificent efforts and stand in amazement at what he did accomplish.

I suggest that one needs to view Ayn Rand in context also; ; (February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), she began writing in the 1920's, her first serious work, "We The Living", published in 1936, and became famous in 1943 with the publication of "Fountainhead".

In further context, women's right to vote, The Nineteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution on August 26, 1920, the 'Feminist' movement that began in the 1950's, I think, all played a part of her intellectual development.

I greatly admire the efforts of Ayn Rand to clarify fundamental concepts concerning human individual freedom, rights and liberties, and especially her summation of economic imperatives and her understanding that free people implied free markets.

My diversion from her thinking is contained in her own words and her own insistence upon defining the terms one uses and to acknowledge that words represent absolute concepts that are self evident, axiomatic, to the human condition:

Life

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 121


Human reproductive understanding and medicine, I think one can state, was in its infancy during Ayn Rand's early and middle life. I think it is also accurate to conclude that she was influenced by the emergence of women's rights during her lifetime and celebrated women being accepted as more than chattel, or property, in all walks of life, at least in western post industrial societies.

Science has now provided mankind with the full understanding that at the moment of conception, the full genetic and chromosomal content of a new life is created; it can be nothing else but human and it can be defined in no other way than, 'life', human life, and as such is protected by our laws that acknowledged that the 'right to life', is innate and unalienable.

There are many pages in the archives of this forum, pages I have offered in explanation and definition of my position on this issue and I have remained consistent throughout, since late 2003, and I have been speaking and writing about this issue since the Supreme Court passed Roe V Wade, in 1973.

I trust that addresses your question?

Regards...

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

Atheism is a rejection of all faiths and all beliefs; a rational, cognitive quest for understanding the nature of life.

Sorry, nope. Atheism means a non-belief in any gods. That's ALL it means, although many other things can go along with Atheism-- or not. Contrast Ami's early statement above, with this recent sentence;

Every scientist and every biologist in the entire civilized world agrees that human life is created at the moment of conception. It can be nothing else.

We can see that any old nut can also be an atheist. Atheism is not a guarantee of rationality. Any atheist can develop irrational and dogmatic beliefs about any other thing under the sun.

 

[stephen55]

ami on a roll...

Every scientist and every biologist in the entire civilized world agrees that human life is created at the moment of conception. It can be nothing else.
Amicus

With a sentence like that at the beginning of a comment, you know that every word of the entire thing will consist of willful ignorance.

ROFMLAO!

ami is really on a roll in this thread.

He comes up with some real howlers every now and then but so far, this is my favorite...

String Theory, Chaos and Uncertainty, even the billions spent to discover the 'God Particle' at CERN, are little more than intellectual masturbation to avoid really introspective thoughts applied to human ethics and morals minus a God figure.
Amicus

It was almost as good as...

Thus I cannot just agree to disagree; I am compelled to confront the fog of self enforced ignorance that permits perfectly good people to ruin their entire lives by, for example, having an abortion at age 18. The act will never go away and will haunt forever. And yes, I know that as a fact.
Amicus

Then, when challenged on the last one, he came up with...

You can be as mean and nasty and dismissive of every one who holds life as sacred, as you do and never wonder what led you to such bitterness and disdain for others?

You are harsh, vindictive and cruel to anyone who dares disagree with you; ever ask yourself why you are so self righteous and egotistically inclined?
Amicus

Then he comes up with...

Formally, it is a complex subject, especially as the professionals, whose roots are in Pavlov and B.F Skinner, 'behaviorists', tend to treat human emotions as relative to a dog's learning to salivate at the sound of a bell in anticipation of being fed.
Amicus

...as well as...

I am not a scientist, but I do read the cutting edge articles that define our times and there is increasingly ever so much information available.
Amicus

So much cutting edge information available but not enough for ami to realize that reading does not equate to understanding.

ami, have you read anything "cutting edge" on physics or human behavior...lately? Have you understood anything written on human behavior since Pavlov wrote about dogs and Skinner filled us in on pigeons?

ami, when you use phrases like formal philosophy and absolute science, and then proceed to show you know little about philosophy, nothing about formal philosophy and less about science (once again in the slight hope you will actually think...there is no such thing as absolute science), you end up making statements like the ones above.

But then, you are the one who wrote...(in a different thread, I think)...

I don't have an overblown ego...
Amicus

ami, your ego is so damned overblown there isn't room in your head for anything else.

 

[sr71plt]

Thus I cannot just agree to disagree; I am compelled to confront the fog of self enforced ignorance that permits perfectly good people to ruin their entire lives by, for example, having an abortion at age 18. The act will never go away and will haunt forever. And yes, I know that as a fact.
Amicus

Well, golly, you mean you don't believe that not only did Ami have an abortion at age 18, but that he's the only one who ever did? (which is the only way he could "know" this "fact")

 

[amicus]

Just on the off chance that three fucks lined up in a row, each of whom has claimed to have me on 'ignore', have somehow refuted my arguments by the continuing innuendo's of ignorance, let me inform you of just how reassuring it is to see them all lathered up about something I wrote.

It is a certain indication and always is, that I touched upon and injured their dearly held deepest beliefs. Belief and Faith is all they have as 'absolute' science or psychology are concepts they reject. Then the one retard swearing that only empirical evidence can be the foundation for knowledge; one must personally experience something before 'knowing' it, as if the conceptual transfer of knowledge has yet to be discovered. True silliness, lined up, one after the other for all to chuckle at.

There is no God, as there is no evidence suggesting the existence of such and any evidence that did, would, by definition, contradict other 'known' evidence of physics and reality.

Abortion is murder; the taking of an innocent and vulnerable human life without cause or due process. A fundamental requirement of 'being' a scientist or a biologist, is that of seeking truth, adhering to the laws of physics and the nature of the subject or object they are investigating. That being axiomatic, every scientist and every biologist in the known world, defines life as beginning at the instant of conception as 'truth', because that is what it is and how it is defined.

The 'three fucks in a row', will just fume and fizzle, as they always do, but please observe the fundamental fallacies exposed by their vitriol: and understand that to them, there is no 'truth' in anything (why even have the word), and nothing is absolute; not the periodic chart of elements or the fact that H2 plus O is water.

This is important stuff, for without truth, one can kill babies and butt fuck a mouse and feel no remorse.

Amicus (who, in addition to being brilliant, has a flair (rhymes with flare which is alliterative)...

thankee for reading...

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's awfully easy to expose your fundamental fallacies, Ami. All anyone has to do is wind you up and watch you swing around in little circles.

Isn't it embarrassing at all, knowing that you expose yourself so abjectly?

 

[sr71plt]

Just on the off chance that three fucks lined up in a row, each of whom has claimed to have me on 'ignore'

I don't have you on ignore all the time (and not at the moment). Sometimes I want the kind of amusement your time-wasting (yours, not mine, as I only skim) posts provide.

You didn't respond to what I posted, though (you never do, actually). How could you possibly "know" as a "fact" what any abortion means to any woman? (You're so full of shit )

 

[amicus]

On the possibility that someone may read the following and reconsider abortion as a solution, I offer the following article:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap1.html

It even has a name, PAS: Post Abortion Syndrome.

Symptoms of PAS.

The following symptoms may not appear at the same time, nor is any woman likely to experience the entire list. Some may occur immediately after an abortion, and others may take months or even years to surface.

Suicide. Feelings of rejection, low self-esteem, guilt and depression are all ingredients for suicide. According to one study, women who have had abortions are nine times more likely to attempt suicide than women in the general population. (Ann Saltenberger, Every Woman Has a Right to Know the Dangers of Legal Abortion. p. 19, quoted in Reardon p.129)

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thank you for your link.

I was surprised to see it at all, but on closer look not surprised at all. It seems to be a site that "teaches" evangelicalism. The front page says;
The mission of Faculty Commons is to reach and equip professors to change the world for Christ.

Of COURSE people who do not believe that women should make their own choices would claim something like that.

Here, You consider wikipedia an authority; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_mental_health

In a 1990 review, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses."[6] The APA revised and updated its findings in August 2008 to account for the accumulation of new evidence, and again concluded that termination of a first, unplanned pregnancy did not lead to an increased risk of mental health problems. The data for multiple abortions were more equivocal, as the same factors that predispose a woman to multiple unwanted pregnancies may also predispose her to mental health difficulties.[11][12] As of August 2008, the United Kingdom Royal College of Psychiatrists is also performing a systematic review of the medical literature to update their position statement on the subject.[3]

Some proposed negative psychological effects of abortion have been referred to by pro-life advocates as a separate condition called "post-abortion syndrome." However, the existence of "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized by any medical or psychological organization,[13] and some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the effort to popularize the idea of a "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes.

 

[sr71plt]

On the possibility that someone may read the following and reconsider abortion as a solution, I offer the following article:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap1.html

It even has a name, PAS: Post Abortion Syndrome.

Symptoms of PAS.

The following symptoms may not appear at the same time, nor is any woman likely to experience the entire list. Some may occur immediately after an abortion, and others may take months or even years to surface.

Suicide. Feelings of rejection, low self-esteem, guilt and depression are all ingredients for suicide. According to one study, women who have had abortions are nine times more likely to attempt suicide than women in the general population. (Ann Saltenberger, Every Woman Has a Right to Know the Dangers of Legal Abortion. p. 19, quoted in Reardon p.129)

Amicus

Ahem. No, this doesn't provide your answer to the following:

How could you possibly "know" as a "fact" what any abortion means to any woman?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ahem. No, this doesn't provide your answer to the following:

How could you possibly "know" as a "fact" what any abortion means to any woman?

He just does, that's all. WHYYYYY can't you believe (blindly) in his word?

 

[amicus]

From the link I provided concerning Post Abortion Syndrome consequences; resource materials:

Post-Abortion Problems: Resource List
This reading list is not meant to be exhaustive. There are several books you may use to further educate yourself available from Texans United for Life. Below are a few suggestions to begin your study:

· Aborted Women, Silent No More: Twenty Women Share Their Personal Journeys from the Tragedy of Abortion to Restored Wholeness. David C. Reardon.
Loyola University Press, 3441 N. Ashland Ave. Chicago, IL 60657 (1987)
ISBN 0-8294-0579-8.

· Helping Women Recover from Abortion. Nancy Michels.
Bethany House Publishers. 6820 Auto Club Rd. Minneapolis, MN 55438 (1988)
ISBN 0-87123-621-4.

· Abortion Questions and Answers. Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Wilke.
Hayes Publishing Co., Inc. 6304 Hamilton Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45224 Phone: 513.681.7559 (1990)
ISBN 910728-20-8.

· Pro Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments. Randy Alcorn.
Multinomah Press. 10209 S.E. Division St. Portland, OR 97266 (1992)
ISBN 0-88070-472-1.

· When Does Life Begin? And 39 other tough questions about abortion. John Ankerberg and John Weldon.
Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, Inc. 1749 Mallory Lane, Suite 110, Brentwood, TN 37027 (1989)
ISBN 1-56121-014-5.

· Third Time Around: A History of the Pro-Life Movement from the First Century to the Present. George Grant.
Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, Inc. 1749 Mallory Lane, Suite 110, Brentwood, TN 37027 (1991).
ISBN 0-943497-65-5.

· 52 Simple Things You Can Do To Be Pro-Life · Abortion: A Rational Look At an Emotional Issue. R. C. Sproul. (Book, Video and Audio Cassette with Study Guide).

· Abortion in the 90's. (Three 30 minute video tapes from the John Ankerberg Show. Excellent information on history of abortion, scientific evidence of fetal development, answers to pro-abortion arguments and abortion techniques. Very graphic at times.)

· Abortion--The American Holocaust. John Hagee Ministries (Video and Audio Cassette).

· Abortion Techniques. Carol Everett. (Video)

Don't let this list discourage you. Choose the title that speaks most to you and start there.

National Right To Life News (NRLN) also has valuable information concerning current pro-life issues and legislation. The web site is http://www.nrlc.org. E-mail address is: nrlc@nrlc.org. Their phone number is: (202) 626-8000.

World, a Christian weekly newsmagazine, is excellent not only as a source for current abortion news but as a well needed alternative to secular news. I recommend it for those seeking a "Biblical worldview." Their E-mail address is: wldmailbag@aol.com and their phone is: (800) 951-6397.

We also recommend The Elliot Institute -- designed to help women cope with post-abortion trauma.

Other Recommended Resource Links:
Home Page of Hope-Net
Memorial for the Unborn
Help & Hope Page
America's CARE-LINK post-abortion recovery support groups list


~~~

That the sources are Christian or Religious based...doesn't trouble me at all, who, besides myself is in open opposition to abortion?

Amicus

 

[sr71plt]

Nope that wasn't an explanation of your statement on you yourself having had the only ever abortion an 18-year-old has ever had either. I so want to hear how you "know" for a "fact" how this affects someone who has done that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

~~~

That the sources are Christian or Religious based...doesn't trouble me at all, who, besides myself in in open opposition to abortion?

Amicus

Not actual scientists, that's for sure! Nobody except the blindly faithful.

 

[Dragonlipz]

tetriscera, welcome to Lit and the Authors' Hangout.


It's up to you how you deal with the guy. From personal experience I know that using fact and reason won't get you very far.

Stephen55 - Confronting the old chickenhawk (he never served in a war zone but yearns for combat) with truth, logic, and superior intellect got him to put me on ignore......He doesn't have any use for facts, less for truth, and even less for women.....But to the point, he won't engage because his command of historical fact, unassailable truth and the ability to discuss concepts in an adult manner is second only to Sarah Palin's..........................
Welcome to the monkey house tetriscera........................

 

[sr71plt]

who, besides myself in in open opposition to abortion?

Nope, won't suck in on that simplistic view.

I abhor abortion. Try as I might, I believe life begins at conception and that one life is as valuable as any other--even in the womb. But reality doesn't let that be the end of the issue for me. (And, surprise, that also means that the baby's life doesn't trump the mother's in my view.)

I abhor having to choose medically between the life of a fetus and that of the mother. But in some situations that choice has to be made--or they both die, which also isn't acceptable to me.

I abhor tossing a baby into a situation unfit to receive it for various reasons from rape to a mother who will be a physical threat to the child.

I abhor forcing a child with no chance of functioning in the world without constant pain and total disabiity to be born into that situation.

I abhor a deadbeat mother operating as a baby factory.

I abhor a woman using the availability of abortion (but not contraception) as a license not to take responsibility for preventing a pregnancy she doesn't welcome.

I cannot believe that the choice of having a baby or not is the mother's alone--especially if the father is prepared/able to take care of the child if the mother isn't or if he's going to be forced to fully support the child without a share in raising the child if the mother maintains the full decision on having it (with specific-situation exceptions). It takes two to tango.

I do believe that the mother has more to say about what's going to happen to her body than anyone else--but not total say if she's expecting full support from the father and/or society without giving the father and/or society any say in the matter. I haven't the foggiest notion how to make this happen.

And I don't believe that all conservatives/Republicans think only one way on these issues and all liberals/Democrats think only another way. Some of my beliefs that I can't deny, because beliefs are absolute, come out on the conservative side of the ledger; others don't. And it's not your choice (or even mine), Ami, what my convoluted beliefs are.

I just don't pretend to know how to navigate through these shoals--and I believe my right to do so decreases as my personal involvement in the specific issue becomes more remote.

What I do know, Ami, is that your simplistic world view doesn't have any answers for this complex issue--only wrenches to throw into the works.

And I don't believe for nanosecond that you have any remote "knowledge" of the "facts" of how an abortion affects any woman of whatever age.

 

[amicus]

Nope, won't suck in on that simplistic view.

I abhor abortion. Try as I might, I believe life begins at conception and that one life is as valuable as any other--even in the womb. But reality doesn't let that be the end of the issue for me. (And, surprise, that also means that the baby's life doesn't trump the mothers in my view.)

I abhor having to choose medically between the life of a fetus and that of the mother. But in some situations that choice has to be made--or they both die, which also isn't acceptable to me.

I abhor tossing a baby into a situation unfit to receive it for various reasons from rape to a mother who will be a physical threat to the child.

I abhor forcing a child with no chance of functioning in the world without constant pain and total disabiity to be born into that situation.

I abhor a deadbeat mother operating as a baby factory.

I abhor a woman using the availability of abortion (but not contraception) as a license not to take responsibility for preventing a pregnancy she doesn't welcome.

I cannot believe that the choice of having a baby or not is the mother's alone--especially if the father is prepared/able to take care of the child if the mother isn't or if he's going to be forced to fully support the child without a share in raising the child if the mother maintains the full decision on having it (with specific-situation exceptions). It takes two to tango.

I do believe that the mother has more to say about what's going to happen to her body than anyone else--but not total say if she's expecting full support from the father and/or society without giving the father and/or society any say in the matter. I haven't the foggiest notion how to make this happen.

And I don't believe that all conservatives/Republicans think only one way on these issues and all liberals/Democrats think only another way. Some of my beliefs that I can't deny, because beliefs are absolute, come out on the conservative side of the ledger; others don't. And it's not your choice (or even mine), Ami, what my convoluted beliefs are.

I just don't pretend to know how to navigate through these shoals--and I believe my right to do so decreases as my personal involvement in the specific issue becomes more remote.

What I do know, Ami, is that your simplistic world view doesn't have any answers for this complex issue--only wrenches to throw into the works.

And I don't believe for nanosecond that you have any remote "knowledge" of the "facts" of how an abortion affects any woman of whatever age.[/QUOTE]

~~~~

I have to say this up front...I had written a response to your Post, scrolled back up to do a quick edit and the whole thing disappeared...my bad.

Nothing I write ever comes out exactly the same way twice, so we will never know what my first draft contained.

~~~

As before, I am quoting your entire Post, so that perhaps another few may read it and to tender my applause for your commentary.

I will trust that you never believed I am unaware of the many contingencies you listed; I am fully aware and cognizant of each and every one.

Because I have written it here many, many times, I suspect you are fully aware of my position on abortion, whether you appreciate it or respect it, it is my stand and I will, once again, attempt to provide a clarification that does not contain a reference to faith or belief.

As a preface, I reject the opinion that morals and ethics are situational or relativistic, or merely one opinion or belief pitted against another. I hold that there are moral absolutes based on reason and rationality and that we can know and practice those morals if we so choose.

Without sentient human life, there are no values, it is merely nature and predator and prey.

But with sentient human life, then 'life' itself, is, by definition, the foundation, the basis, for all other 'rights' in support of that fundamental. Without the highest value being placed on 'life', there are no other values possible.

From an acknowledgement that life, human sentient life, is the primary value, then one can proceed to an hierarchy of values, all of which support, sustain and nurture that basic value.

As you know, I am not a God person, who believes that life is sacred because God created it, although I do not begrudge that belief to others as Religion has, in some cases, served man well until a rational philosophical based study of ethics came about.

You stated that you don't 'pretend'; nor do I, but in addition, I do not base my moral concepts on belief, either.

You state an example where the life of the unborn child and the mother are in equal danger and only one can survive. There is tragedy in either solution and perhaps in both, and certainly a strong belief system is essential to deal with the trauma of loss of life. For those who have such a faith, one that can carry you through, you should indeed lean upon the broad shoulders of belief.

In our modern age, many do not have that faith to fall back upon unless an emergency arises and then what must be felt, I can only speculate upon.

Thus, I hold, it becomes a psychological imperative for an individual without faith to have an alternative path towards moral certitude. That path can only be reason and rationality, and that is the path I have chosen to follow.

It is not simplistic, regardless of how many times you chide me as such; it is very complex and very difficult to construct a congruent, non contradictory moral and ethical system to guide one through difficult times.

I am so very fortunate to have had eight perfect children and over twenty perfect grandchildren born into this world. I can not know the suffering of a parent or parents with a 'less than perfect' child, or how they deal with the hand that reality dealt them.

Should a Down Sydrome child be aborted? Medical science can determine, long before birth of such an affliction. What about a child to be born blind, or deaf, or with even more severe disabilities?

If it were just a 'blob of protoplasm', as I recall Ayn Rand described it...but if, as you stated, from the moment of conception, it is 'life', are we not compelled to protect it and nurture it?

I appreciate your forthright Posting and felt compelled to answer in like style with my honest answer.

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

Nope, won't suck in on that simplistic view.

I abhor abortion. Try as I might, I believe life begins at conception and that one life is as valuable as any other--even in the womb. But reality doesn't let that be the end of the issue for me. (And, surprise, that also means that the baby's life doesn't trump the mothers in my view.)

I abhor having to choose medically between the life of a fetus and that of the mother. But in some situations that choice has to be made--or they both die, which also isn't acceptable to me.

I abhor tossing a baby into a situation unfit to receive it for various reasons from rape to a mother who will be a physical threat to the child.

I abhor forcing a child with no chance of functioning in the world without constant pain and total disabiity to be born into that situation.

I abhor a deadbeat mother operating as a baby factory.

I abhor a woman using the availability of abortion (but not contraception) as a license not to take responsibility for preventing a pregnancy she doesn't welcome.

I cannot believe that the choice of having a baby or not is the mother's alone--especially if the father is prepared/able to take care of the child if the mother isn't or if he's going to be forced to fully support the child without a share in raising the child if the mother maintains the full decision on having it (with specific-situation exceptions). It takes two to tango.

I do believe that the mother has more to say about what's going to happen to her body than anyone else--but not total say if she's expecting full support from the father and/or society without giving the father and/or society any say in the matter. I haven't the foggiest notion how to make this happen.

And I don't believe that all conservatives/Republicans think only one way on these issues and all liberals/Democrats think only another way. Some of my beliefs that I can't deny, because beliefs are absolute, come out on the conservative side of the ledger; others don't. And it's not your choice (or even mine), Ami, what my convoluted beliefs are.

I just don't pretend to know how to navigate through these shoals--and I believe my right to do so decreases as my personal involvement in the specific issue becomes more remote.

What I do know, Ami, is that your simplistic world view doesn't have any answers for this complex issue--only wrenches to throw into the works.

And I don't believe for nanosecond that you have any remote "knowledge" of the "facts" of how an abortion affects any woman of whatever age.

Thank you for one of the most honest and nuanced statements I have ever read.