Not only that , I don’t believe in abortion being evil 100% of the time , actually it can be massively EV .
Imagine how saving tens of millions of life with 3 abortion (Hitler ,mao , Stalin) inside a window of 20 years only !!

the most shocking thing about all this is not the first SC leak in modern history, it's that apparently there are "pro life" people on a ****ing gambling forum.

That's honestly astounding to me.

Too bad these morons don’t care as much about people after they’re born.

The fact that people who are pro death penalty, pro war, anti helping poor, managed to brand themselves "pro life" is astounding.

Yeah the right can do some funny mental gymnastics when it comes to Christian identity.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/pennsy...-1173647939750

I can think of an argument that I have not seen elsewhere, that could persuade religious people, but not atheists, that abortion does not kill a person. Not if "killing" means that you end their future life.

To explain this I ask if "you" is specifically what has come into being only because one specific sperm hit one specific egg. (By "you" I mean your sense of self, your consciousness, or as some would call it, your "soul". Not your physical appearance.) Most atheistic scientists pretty much believe this. It is only that egg-sperm combination that turns into you. Once that combination dies (For the sake of simplicity we will ignore the possibility of being a twin) "you" are almost certainly gone forever. And if that sperm and egg miss each other, you and your future, is gone before it started (For the sake of simplicity we will ignore multi universes that have you not missing in some of them.)

But almost all religious people don't subscribe to this. They believe that instead God inserts your "soul" once the egg and sperm collide. A soul that doesn't require a specific sperm and egg. But if God does that, it would stand to reason that anytime before the time that the embryo, fetus, or maybe even the very young baby is self aware, he can withdraw that soul if the "container" got destroyed, and put it somewhere else. So for instance if your mother had an abortion a year before you were born, why couldn't your body be the second one your soul was put into?

Maybe it is the atheists who should be pro life rather than the other way around.

+1

Fwiw atheist usually believe in science and the universe being kinda Infinite , u eventually would be born anyway at some point in time right ?

So not only do you think that most Republicans who call abortion murder are lying, you also think that some of the ones who are not lying are more concerned with getting re elected than saving children's lives.

I don't know. My post was intended to offer a thought to the religious or those who might want to influence them. The atheist position doesn't interest me at the moment.

I dunno if religious people buy into the part about God taking the soul and putting it into a different "container".

To Christians, once the egg is fertilized by a sperm it's a person, period. It just happens to live in the womb for 9 months. So an abortion kills a person, including their soul.

It's no different in their minds than taking a gun and shooting a toddler in the head.

I mean if you get down to it, murder should probably not even be considered a big deal by Christians. They believe the victim's soul lives for eternity in perfect happiness in heaven. So what is the loss of a few years of dreary earthly life, in comparison to infinity with God? It's meaningless. In a way the earlier someone dies, the quicker they get to their reward.

You committed several logical fallacies in the post above. Do you know what logical fallacies are? If not, I would be delighted to provide you with some helpful, free resources so you can educate yourself about them.

how ironic ....
like the biggest logical fallacies comes from religion itself....
i mean if god is omnipotent, know everything, is perfect ,etc. why did the need of the bible came to be and not stick to the old testament ?
If god made a mistake with the old testament then how can u be sure he did not made a mistake with the bible afterwards ?

The anti-choicers just need to go full lagtight and say invisible sky daddy told them so. When the try to science, it just makes the look even more dumb than giving the sky daddy reasoning.

If you could defend the murderous immoral religion you would. Instead you are required to divert to fictional fallacies instead of saying this: "I believe the killing of every fetus and baby on earth (in the Great Flood) was good. I believe it was loving. I defend it. If "He" wants to do it again, he never changes you know, it's A-okay with me. And somehow, us people who think like this, are very concerned about fetuses nowadays. And yet we don't see any contradiction or fallacy in our position. And that's because our worldview consists of magic and sacrifice of all agency to a superstition."

While you can probably gain the access out of state, it's still a very subpar way to approach a big decision. Several states also seem to have made or are likely to make Soviet-style informer laws to stop this.

Here is a likely scenario: Pregnancy occurs. Because of these laws you will now delay getting medical help, for fairly obvious reasons: If you spread the word, you have no options.

So potential problems will be diagnosed later, which is in itself hugely problematic, because pregnancy is a very dangerous thing. A big reason why we have managed to make somewhat safe in modern time is through early access to health-care. Of course, for the proposed laws in some states, this is close to irrelevant because it seems clear their intent is to force women with problematic pregnancies to simply die.

Now, since you're on a more cramped timetable, you will have less time to explore your options. Which I think is why laws like these increase abortions: You might not learn your options, and even if you do, you might not have the time to safely weigh them.

And I do think non-sanctioned procedures will be thing, simply because there will be people who just want it off record and off books. And while think non-sanctioned procedures are horrible and invasive, I think such a reasoning is sadly understandable. We see state legislatures passing laws that wants to sic your neighbors on you, wants to pressure murder charges for not going through with a medically dangerous pregnancy and wants to force you to carry your rapists child to term.

t_d,

I am not suggesting that the decision is good for the country or that off-the-books abortions are no big deal.

I merely was pointing out, even before the decision, access to abortion in a lot of states was extremely limited. This may have been the final swing of the axes for people in those states, but 90% of the chopping had already been done.

I do not now, nor have I ever, believed in an entity that could be aptly described as an "invisible sky daddy." That was a favourite term of our resident drunkard d2_e4.

Normally intelligent, coherent posters like yourself often become babbling lunatics when confronted with the possibility that women may lose their "right" to slaughter their unborn baby in the womb.

When confronted with the possibility that women may lose their "right" to slaughter their unborn baby in the womb, normally intelligent posters like yourself even sometimes lose the capacity to construct a grammatically-correct sentence.

Some of us think describing abortion this way is babbling lunatic talk.

I don't understand your reasoning here, Montrealcorp. The New Testament is in one sense a continuation of the Old Testament, not a replacement for it. There is no sense in which God giving us the New Testament suggests that the Old Testament was a "mistake." There are over 100 Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah (Jesus).

Since I don't follow a "murderous, immoral religion", I don't need to defend one. Maybe asking an abortion-supporter why they follow a "murderous, immoral religion" would be more to the point.

Yes, I believe that the Great Flood was good. And I also believe people ought not to have a "right" to slaughter unborn babies. No fallacy or contradiction that I can see.

What specific fallacies am I committing? Do you even know what logical fallacies are? If not, I would be delighted to provide you with some helpful, free resources that will help you educate yourself about them.

How so?

Well if you need to ask why such emotive hyperbole is considered the talk of babbling lunatics then you're probably one of said babbling lunatics, really.

I believe what I said, not your characterization of what I said. I said that "not all" Republicans who say abortion is child murder actually believe that it is. I didn't say "most." I don't believe that the percentage of GOP firebrands who are disingenuous on this issue is trivial, but is it "most"? I don't know.

I don't think it is debatable that politicians sometimes trade off lives for political reasons. Our nation's gun laws seem to be an explicit example of this phenomenon, as do many military decisions.