home
RSS
Survey: Few religious groups want Roe v. Wade overturned despite belief abortion morally wrong
Roe v. Wade has remained controversial in the four decades since the landmark Supreme Court decision.
January 16th, 2013
10:00 AM ET

Survey: Few religious groups want Roe v. Wade overturned despite belief abortion morally wrong

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) Forty years after the Supreme Court protected abortion rights in Roe v. Wade, a new survey finds that white evangelicals remain the only major religious group that supports overturning the landmark ruling, even though most such groups find abortion morally wrong.

Slightly more than half (54%) of white evangelicals, according to the Pew Research Center study, favor completely overturning the 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion. No other religious group, including white mainline Protestants, black Protestants and white Catholics, agreed with completely overturning the ruling.

In fact, substantial majorities of white Protestants (76%), black Protestants (65%) and white Catholics (63%) say the ruling should not be over turned, the survey found.

But support for keeping Roe v. Wade intact does not mean these religious majorities believe abortion is morally acceptable.

A majority of every religious group sampled white evangelicals (73%), black Protestants (58%) and Catholics (58%) and a plurality of white mainline Protestants (36%) responded that abortion was morally wrong. Those respondents who find it morally wrong are also overwhelmingly likely to support overturning the law, compared with keeping it intact 85% to 5%.

"What is interesting about this aspect of abortion attitudes is that while many people find abortion to be problematic, they may either personally feel it is wrong or favor greater restrictions. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not nearly as supported an idea," said Michael Dimock, director at the Pew Research Center. "The vast majority of evangelicals say they see abortion as morally wrong, but barely a majority say that they want to see Roe v. Wade overturned."

Dimock points out that while more than 70% of white evangelicals find abortion morally wrong, only slightly more than 50% say the ruling should be overturned. "There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of evangelicals who are personally opposed to abortion but don’t want to see this precedent changed," Dimock said.

The religiously unaffiliated were the only group in which more people say they find abortion morally acceptable rather than wrong. Twenty-four percent of the group said it was acceptable, compared with 20% who said it was wrong. Nearly half (43%) said it was not a moral issue.

White evangelicals (64%) are also the most ardent that abortion should be illegal in “all or most cases.” Mormons (63%) and Hispanic Catholics (53%) are the only other two religious groups where more respondents favor illegality in all or most cases.

“By contrast, nearly nine in 10 Jews say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do about seven in 10 Americans with no religious affiliation and 63% of white mainline Protestants,” the survey reported. “Among both black Protestants and white Catholics, 54% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.”

The establishment of a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy has been controversial in the four decades since the Supreme Court decision. The court’s ruling was not close, however. Seven of the nine justices voted in favor of making abortion a fundamental right under the Constitution.

Anti-abortion rights activists have demanded the ruling be repealed, a move that would likely allow states to decide whether to allow abortions or not. With the judiciary becoming more conservative during George W. Bush's presidency, some observers said the court under Chief Justice John Roberts would be anti-abortion activists best opportunity to relitigate Roe v. Wade.

"Roe v. Wade certainly did engage the pro-life movement by being so symbolic of an issue, but I don’t think the level of opposition to abortion has really shifted that much over time," Dimock said. "For a very contentious ruling, the public's view on it has remained fairly stable."

Frequency of religious services attendance is also an indicator of whether a poll respondent wants Roe v. Wade overturned. According to the survey, people who attend weekly or more support overturning the decision by 55% to 44%.

That number is substantially different among respondents who attend church less often. According to the survey, 76% among those don't support overturning the ruling, compared with 17% who do.

The Pew Research Center results are part of a study released with the 40-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade in mind. The telephone survey of 1,502 adults was conducted from January 9 through Sunday, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9%.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Abortion • Belief

soundoff (887 Responses)
  1. lol??

    "Act 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to [his] promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: "

    January 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Does it look to you like there's been a savior?

      January 18, 2013 at 7:23 pm |
  2. It is Called

    It is Called no god(s) required for principles L4h which you need

    It is Called Principles not theory

    Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior (EEB 122)

    Geology and climate have shaped the development of life tremendously. This has occurred in the form of processes such as the oxygenation of the atmosphere, mass extinctions, tectonic drift, and disasters such as floods and volcanic eruptions. Life, particularly bacteria, has also been able to impact the geological makeup of the planet through metabolic processes.

    00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
    02:16 – Chapter 2. The Oxygenation of the Atmosphere
    09:08 – Chapter 3. Evidence of Climate Change
    17:36 – Chapter 4. Geological Impact on Life
    29:37 – Chapter 5. Mass Extinctions
    42:19 – Chapter 6. Earthquakes, Eruptions, and Floods
    46:38 – Chapter 7. Conclusion

    Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses
    Category
    Education
    No repy needed take it up with YALE
    Peace

    January 18, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
  3. God's honest truth

    tbt is a bottom feeder.

    January 18, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
  4. Live4Him

    @Gir : The Big Bang Theory is a SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIED theory origin of the universe.

    It is a THEORY (no such thing as "scientifically verified" since science doesn't do that) that starts AFTER matter, energy and time were created.

    @Gir : A lack of a natural explanation does not indicate the validity of a supernatural one.

    What it DOES do is eliminate naturalism as a viable solution. Since there is a supernatural explanation, it is the best solution.

    @Gir : (and by definition, UNVERIFIABLE) explanation

    You obviously don't realize that ANY origin event is unverifiable.

    @Gir : Have you examined EVERY creation myth on the planet?

    Most, yes.

    @Gir : "Transmission?" What does it mean?

    What do you think it means? Handing the text down through the years.

    @Gir : The bible makes the claim of prophecy, and the same bible makes the claim of prophetic fulfillment.

    WOW! You don't know the text which you're arguing against, do you? Ezekiel 37 for.etold the re-birth of Israel. It was fulfilled in 1948 (i.e. AFTER the Bible was written).

    @Gir : Rev 13 mentions multiheaded beasts rising from the sea.

    Again, you've shown that you don't know the text which you're arguing against. The text clearly identifes the "multiheaded beast" as a governmental body representing the various nations. Likewise, the sea describes the people.

    January 18, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Lie4Him, You're just making this up as you go along aren't you. Twisting and turning to make it appear to fit.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
    • RevealTheMyth

      Live4Him: "What it DOES do is eliminate naturalism as a viable solution. Since there is a supernatural explanation, it is the best solution. You obviously don't realize that ANY origin event is unverifiable."

      Your second sentence refutes your first sentence. Because so little is KNOWN at or before the beginning, we can just as easily say we don't KNOW the extent of naturalism; we don't KNOW if naturalism incorporated different laws at or before what we theorize as the beginning (beyond which we do not KNOW). The supernatural explanation is a stretch and the Abrahamic god is a wild stretch.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
    • RevealTheMyth

      Excuuuuse me. Your *third* sentence refutes your first sentence.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
    • Apatheist

      "What it DOES do is eliminate naturalism as a viable solution. Since there is a supernatural explanation, it is the best solution."

      That is certainly false. Planes weren't a viable solution to travel until they became scientifically feasible. Not having a CURRENT natural explanation of the universe's existance in no way implies that we will NEVER have a natural explanation. In fact, we get closer to that each day. Also, just because there is a supernatural explanation (there are actually many considering all the gods of the world), that in no way makes it the best explanation. Remember, complete lack of evidence is evidence in and of itself.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • Poltergeist

      Nature can only describe the physical world. Before the big bang there was no physical world. There is no natural way to define the universe before time and matter.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
    • Apatheist

      @Poltergeist I understand that perspective but it's not necessarily accurate. We don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang. I may be optimistic but I think that, one day, we will have a 'Theory of Everything'. Once we can explain what happened prior to the Big Bang mathematically, I would argue that wherever that math leads us would become part of our understood natural world.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
    • kirk1

      @liv4hm the rebirth of israel is a spiritual one not literal.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
    • Poltergeist

      I don't think it's going to happen. We're trying to define prior to the big bang using math, something that's a product of nature for the purpose of defining natural things in the universe. The unfalsifiable string theory makes me cringe. No ones ever considered that our ability to conceptualize certain problems may be lacking. Just like a monkey will never understand calculus, I suspect we have limits to what we can ultimately understand as well.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • Apatheist

      Failure is certainly a real possibility but I still feel like we'll get there eventually. Granted, we all may be long dead. At a certain point, possibly in the foreseeable future, computer technology will reach a state where we should be able to get there. I agree with you on String Theory, BTW. Even if it's true, it's just not romantic enough... it would be a let down.

      January 18, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      "What it DOES do is eliminate naturalism as a viable solution. Since there is a supernatural explanation, it is the best solution."

      Absolutely not.
      As said before, this is an Arguement from Ignorace.
      You have excluded the possibility that there is a natural explanation that we don't know, yet.
      You have not shown a supernatural "explanation", just a supernatural assertion, "God did it".

      January 18, 2013 at 4:11 pm |
    • The Truth

      I find the fact that L4H doesn't know the difference between a scientific theory and lay theory to be the funniest part of his delusional post.

      January 18, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
    • Reality

      What we do know: (from the fields of astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology and the history of religion)

      1. The Sun will burn out in 3-5 billion years so we have a time frame.

      2. Asteroids continue to circle us in the nearby asteroid belt.

      3. One wayward rock/comet and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.

      4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.

      5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.

      6. All stars will eventually extinguish as there is a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the universe. When this happens (100 trillion years?), the universe will go dark. If it does not collapse and recycle, the universe will end.

      7. Super, dormant volcanoes off the coast of Africa and under Yellowstone Park could explode catalytically at any time ending life on Earth.

      Bottom line: our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?

      January 18, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
    • Reality

      o More details from National Geographic's Genographic project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

      "Our spe-cies is an African one: Africa is where we first ev-olved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fos-sils of recognizably modern Ho-mo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated.

      According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.

      Once the climate started to improve, after 70,000 years ago, we came back from this near-extinction event. The population expanded, and some intrepid explorers ventured beyond Africa. The earliest people to colonize the Eurasian landma-ss likely did so across the Bab-al-Mandab Strait separating present-day Yemen from Djibouti. These early beachcombers expanded rapidly along the coast to India, and reached Southeast Asia and Australia by 50,000 years ago. The first great foray of our species beyond Africa had led us all the way across the globe."

      For for your check of $199 and a DNA swab:

      "Included in the markers we will test for is a subset that scientists have recently determined to be from our hominin cousins, Neanderthals and the newly discovered Denisovans, who split from our lineage around 500,000 years ago. As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia. It seems that our ancestors met, leaving a small genetic trace of these ancient relatives in our DNA. With Geno 2.0, you will learn if you have any Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in your genome."

      See also the recent PBS docu-mentary on humans and Neaderthals.

      January 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • Poltergeist

      Or tommorow because some astronomers got sloppy.

      January 18, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
    • Free Nits

      Free nut

      January 18, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • Gir

      The Big Bang Theory describes how the Universe was created. Quantum fluctuations occur, then annihilation, then the inflationary force takes over. This theory has been tested and found to be the best explanation. Creationists, on the other hand, have not produced even a single hypothesis for testing their miraculous claims
      .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

      Really? You've read most of the creation myths? Alright. Tell me about the various creation myths of the Kwa people of West Africa and the Mughals of Asia. These are MAJOR linguistic groupings, so you must have read about them while reading every single creation myth in existence.
      .........................................................................................................................................................................................................
      There are NO mentions of governments anywhere in Rev 13. Those are SUBJECTIVE interpretations you religionists choose to read into that verse. Eze 37 makes NO mention of dates or eras. How can you say for sure that it was talking about 1948? That prophecy is as truthful as the one predicting King Arthur's return to Britain. Give us justifications for your interpretations.
      .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

      "What it DOES do is eliminate naturalism as a viable solution. Since there is a supernatural explanation, it is the best solution."

      Nonsense. Not only IS there a natural explanation, it offers a far better and actually VERIFIABLE explanation, thereby eliminating the need for supernatural mumbo-jumbo myths (See parsimony). Again, where is the JUSTIFICATION for your false dilemma? Cars weren't around a few years ago. Did that make supernatural teleportation a viable means of transport?

      And please, address my Lamarckism analogy if you will.
      ........................................................................................................................................................................................................

      "Handing down of the text over the years."
      Do you agree that Zeus is the supreme god of the heavens since his myths originated EARLIER and have been handed down completely intact even without the enjoying the privilege of the vehicle of religious fervor that enabled the christian myths to be passed down? That's a much more impressive feat, wouldn't you say?
      .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

      January 18, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
    • Gir

      Let's turn the heat on supernaturalism for a minute. L4H claims origins cannot be known. How did the authors of the bible know then? Did ANOTHER miracle occur there too?

      January 18, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
  5. Sam Yaza

    that guy (in the picture) needs a Hug

    January 18, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • Thoth

      LOL – well he seems to be a great representation of the pro-life right wing conservative – angry old white man.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      ain't that the Thoth

      January 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
    • sam stone

      he does seem to be a charmer

      January 18, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
    • psych ward staff

      LOL

      January 18, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
    • Akira

      That guy is truly frightening-looking...I wonder if the photographer deliberately set out to find the meanest looking person as representative of this movement?

      January 18, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
    • Mohammad A Dar

      @Akira, you did not read my post. I thought the photographer was waving a pro abortion sign aka middle finger with one hand and shooting pictures with other lol!!

      January 18, 2013 at 6:34 pm |
  6. sam

    "The evidence of the decay in our society indicates to me that the post feminist, secular liberalism we have been dining on for a generation has led to more deaths, more abandoned children, more dehumanization of men and women, more commercialization of all people, more loneliness, more divisiveness."

    Bill, society is constantly changing – it's not decaying. You think it's decaying because not everyone is adhering to your moral structure. I'm sorry that women have more rights than they used to and that they can't seem to keep their legs together more often.

    January 18, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Essentially what I am saying re the abortion debate sam is that whether it is legal or illegal really does not address the issue. I think that makes a good subtext for why Christian groups are not especially striving for repeal of Roe v Wade. AS long as it is legal, there will be people who misuse it but even if it were illegal there will be people who victimize themselves and others to the point that an abortion is their option. Unless and until their is a change in mindset, and I submit my moral code as at least toward that direction, we will find ourselves entrenched in a death culture of abortion, broken homes, victimized workers and starving people.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You can't be serious. Abortion rates are dropping steadily, and have been doing so for years. Crime rates have dropped with the availability of more effective contraception and access to abortion as well. There is absolutely no evidence that abortion leads to more "broken homes" (and who even uses that term anymore?). There is no evidence that there's any "culture of death" whatever the hell that means. What silly tripe.

      January 18, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
    • Jen

      Tom you should see Bill's response to Saraswati discussing how pregnancy can lead to an earlier Alzheimer's death. He says that a woman is not allowed to abort to lengthen her life, but admits later that he would not donate an organ to a person who needed it to live if he put them in the situation of needing an organ. He would likely allow them to die. I don't think I've ever read anything more hypocritical in my life.

      January 18, 2013 at 6:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hey Jen. I'm not surprised at all. As you observe, Bill is a hypocrite, pure and simple. He doesn't grasp the principle involved–that of bodily autonomy. He wouldn't ever agree to a law that forced him and others to donate organs to people facing certain death unless they received said organ. But he thinks it's just perfectly fine to tell women that they "must" continue a pregnancy they don't want.

      January 18, 2013 at 6:48 pm |
  7. Gir

    Necessity of a supernatural being
    a) Given the lack of natural explanation to create matter, energy and time,

    The Big Bang Theory is a SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIED theory origin of the universe.

    b) Given the lack of natural explanation to create life,
    Therefore, this implies some supernatural being / God is necessary, but not necessarily the Biblical God.

    False dilemma. A lack of a natural explanation does not indicate the validity of a supernatural one. On what basis do you claim that a supernatural (and by definition, UNVERIFIABLE) explanation is a viable alternative to a NATURAL EXPLANATION for a NATURAL UNIVERSE?

    Which God Did It?
    a) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,

    "Lamarckism posits an explanation for biodiversity. There is biodiversity. So Lamarck was right." See what's wrong with this statement?

    b) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
    Therefore, this implies that only the Abrahamic religions are worthy of consideration for identifying this supernatural being.

    Have you examined EVERY creation myth on the planet? Can you recite the Fulani creation myth, or the Maori creation myth? Do you know the Taoist creation myth? And on what basis do you claim that a supernatural explanation must come from existing religions? Who knows what other cults may spring up in the future?

    Did the Judaism God Do It?
    a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,

    "Transmission?" What does it mean?

    b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible

    The bible makes the claim of prophecy, and the same bible makes the claim of prophetic fulfillment. Circular reasoning.

    Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender for this supernatural being.

    Wrong premises, wrong conclusion.

    Did the Islamic God Do It?
    a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,

    What does transmission mean?

    b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)

    Until the existence of the Trinity is proven EMPIRICALLY, anyone can add or subtract from it as they wish, as is the case with all myths.

    c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran

    What do prophecies have to do with the mechanism of the creation of the Universe?

    Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.

    Did the Christian God Do It?
    a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
    b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
    Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender for answering the Which God question. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is the best answer.

    Again, what makes a few supposedly fulfilled prophecies a yardstick by which we can determine the validity of mythological accounts? Rev 13 mentions multiheaded beasts rising from the sea. How will you empirically prove such a thing? Eze 37 talks about animated bones. How are you going to prove that bones can move on their own?

    January 18, 2013 at 11:55 am |
    • Pete

      Since Muslims, Jews, and Christians all worship the same god if the Muslim god didn't create the universe then the Christian god didn't create the universe either.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • SImran

      How can it be so difficult to understand that 3 religions arose in the same region of the world, each talk of the same god, each state that others have it all wrong. When they cannot sort it out among themselves, how can they sort it out with the world's other religions?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Christian logic is hurting my brain.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
  8. Saraswati

    Pregnancies a known risk factor for alzheimer's. This is not just a convenience issue for women, but a real health issue. If you have alzheimer's in your family, you may be losing up to three years per child. This information is out there, but no mainstream media wants to print it.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17116223

    http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=101785

    January 18, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Please tell me that you are not advocating abortion as a means to enrich your own life. Please.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
    • SImran

      Saraswati,

      I am a practicing physician. So I guess I can answer that one for you. In recent years, a lot of research has been done into etiology of Alzheimer's. And it has been associated to almost every imaginable thing – from vitamin D deficiency to diabetes. Yes, there have few papers suggesting an association with number of pregnancies, but that means nothing unless it is proven in a large study (not 200 or 300 subjects). And still this will not be sufficient to prove causation. Even though I am not a neurologist, I can check with a friend of mine who is, but I think this is what he too would tell me.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • End Religion

      " This information is out there, but no mainstream media wants to print it"
      ...speaking of things that make one skip reading a post...
      I wonder if someone is using Saraswati's moniker?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
    • Poltergeist

      See, even Athiest agree thats hogwash.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Bill, I don't consider avoiding alzheimer's as "enriching my life" unless you want to use that same claim against avoiding cancer or kidney failure. Do you mean to say you would condemn a woman to earlier onset of dementia rather than let her have an abortion?

      @Slmran, please post any additional info you find.

      @End, no, it's me...fair comment.

      I stand by the research having looked into this for several years. Everyone can read up on their own and decide for themselves. If you don't accept it yet, take it as a theoretical question: what if you do find it proves to be true? Also ask youselves why you want so strongly for it not to be true.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Sorry Sara but any time you choose to take something from another person, especially their life for your benefit, that is morally wrong. Simply because might suffer Alzheimers or some lesser consequence does not give you the moral authority to end another's existence. Disclaimer: I'm not saying the SCOTUS hasn't given you the legal right. I'm saying you don't have the moral authority. I thought you were on better footing than that.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
    • Damocles

      @bill

      So you are saying that I can not defend myself if the need arises??

      January 18, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Bill, I have not said anything new. You already knew that I support abortion rights; why is the introduction of alzheimer's as an issue anydifferent. I don't think there is anything morally wrong with abortion at all, and from our previous discussions you should have been well aware of that. Obviously if your premise is that abortion is murder, and you also think that someone is morally obligated to trade three years of their life to prevent murder, then you would have your position. That's fine, but as previously discussed, while I may accept the second of those premises, I don't think abortion is murder or anything close to it. For those who think abortion isn't very nice, but isn't murder, the negative impacts of pregnancy are quite relevant. For someone with your views they are less so.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Sara, I suppose we must agree to disagree.

      Damocles, please. Do you define a difference in defending yourself against an aggressor and victimizing another person on the chance that you might suffer inconvenience if you don't?

      January 18, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
    • Damocles

      @bill

      Unless you want to change what you said, obviously you don't. You said it is morally wrong to take someone's life even if it's for my benefit (my life).

      January 18, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
    • Jesus

      @Bill,

      If you caused a car accident, that injured someone badly enough that they needed a vital organ transplant, and no donors were available, would you sacrifice yourself to save them. If not, would you consider that murder?

      January 18, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Damocles and Jesus. I suspect both of you of just stirring the pot. But on the chance that your question is sincere. There is a difference between taking an act of aggression against another in order to gain a benefit and defending oneself against an aggressor who is attempting that against you, or even against another.

      Secondly, no. One is not burdened to offer organ transplants to someone in which they experience a car wreck with. But, a pregnancy is not a car wreck and maternity is not an organ transplant.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • ex-religion

      15-20% of recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage... seems god is big on abortion?

      January 18, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
    • Jesus

      The premise is the same Bill, and dodging the question doesn’t cut it. Would you, or would you not give your life for the life of another that you had a hand in creating the circumstances requiring such an action?!

      January 18, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Honestly, it's not something I would prejudge. It's possible that I would but I might fail in that effort. Situational ethics is tricky in the hypothetical. I also reject your premise that a car wreck and pregnancy are equivalent.

      January 18, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • End Religion

      i don't agree Sara's post is hogwash. My personal objection is anytime someone appeals that "the mainstream media is ignoring [fill in the blank]" then it most often turns out to be because the one pleading the case is overly passionate on a topic.

      The studies Sara posted appear legit, with 200-400 participants (smallish but acceptable) however if you read them you should see that it doesn't appear much is overly conclusive. The studies themselves say as much. They also prove estrogen production has some benefits, such as osteoporosis improvements, so the study exposes positive and negative health effects.

      The problem here is that I would think if Sara can point to these studies as an indication that multiple pregnancies may lead to Alzeimer's, then someone else can point to them as an indication that multiple pregnancies may improve late-life Osteoporosis effects, But again, not a doctor. Feel free to ignore me.

      January 18, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • Jesus

      Bill, I’m sure it’s too late for this thread, but I’m gonna reply anyway. I’m not asserting that pregnancy is in any way equivalent to a car wreck. You’re either missing the point, or being intentionally obtuse.

      The premise that I am talking about is that of you deciding the fate of a life that you are responsible for. In the case of pregnancy that would result in your death if carried to term, you are responsible for it because you had sex, and got pregnant. In the case of the car wreck victim that will die without you giving up one of your vital organs, you are responsible because you ran a red light, and caused the life-threatening injuries. Both could have been avoided had you not been irresponsible. In both cases you have to decide the fate of another person at the cost of your own life.

      It’s not hypothetical Bill. I’m presenting you with a scenario that you are militantly in favor of when it comes to pregnancy, and all you do is dance around the question when the same circu mstances are presented in a different light. You can reject my premise all you want, but I think deep down you know it’s the same, and you’re just afraid to answer it honestly because it’ll expose a bit of your hypocrisy.

      January 21, 2013 at 8:48 am |
  9. Live4Him

    @Gir : You're trying to convince us of something. Prove it to US. Tell us why WE should believe you.

    Sure thing.

    Necessity of a supernatural being
    a) Given the lack of natural explanation to create matter, energy and time,
    b) Given the lack of natural explanation to create life,
    Therefore, this implies some supernatural being / God is necessary, but not necessarily the Biblical God.

    Which God Did It?
    a) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
    b) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
    Therefore, this implies that only the Abrahamic religions are worthy of consideration for identifying this supernatural being.

    Did the Judaism God Do It?
    a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
    b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
    Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender for this supernatural being.

    Did the Islamic God Do It?
    a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
    b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
    c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
    Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.

    Did the Christian God Do It?
    a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
    b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
    Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender for answering the Which God question. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is the best answer.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • Ooops!

      Since it is born out of a twisted version of Jewish belief, it is the most pathetic answer. There are even non-Jewish followers of the OT that don't buy the Christian claims for Isaiah for instance.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • Free Nuts

      Free nuts all day

      January 18, 2013 at 11:28 am |
    • Chuckles

      @Live4Him

      "Therefore, this implies some supernatural being / God is necessary, but not necessarily the Biblical God"

      - This sentence right here invalidates everything you subsequently say. Implication is NOT the same as proving something and you can't you implication, or inference as a basis for factual information. We don't know if the creation of enegry, matter, etc... needed a supernatural being for creation.

      Case closed, thanks for playing!

      January 18, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • In Santa we trust

      Lie4Him, Your implied conclusions are invalid. What is the "natural conclusion" about the existence of a god? What created your god? If your god can just exist, why can't the universe? At least we have evidence that there is a universe.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him
      "Necessity of a supernatural being
      a) Given the lack of natural explanation to create matter, energy and time,
      b) Given the lack of natural explanation to create life,
      Therefore, this implies some supernatural being / God is necessary, but not necessarily the Biblical God."

      This has be shown to be invalid logic, why do you keep using it?

      January 18, 2013 at 11:57 am |
    • Gir

      Necessity of a supernatural being
      a) Given the lack of natural explanation to create matter, energy and time,

      The Big Bang Theory is a SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIED theory origin of the universe.

      b) Given the lack of natural explanation to create life,
      Therefore, this implies some supernatural being / God is necessary, but not necessarily the Biblical God.

      False dilemma. A lack of a natural explanation does not indicate the validity of a supernatural one. On what basis do you claim that a supernatural (and by definition, UNVERIFIABLE) explanation is a viable alternative to a NATURAL EXPLANATION for a NATURAL UNIVERSE?

      Which God Did It?
      a) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,

      "Lamarckism posits an explanation for biodiversity. There is biodiversity. So Lamarck was right." See what's wrong with this statement?

      b) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
      Therefore, this implies that only the Abrahamic religions are worthy of consideration for identifying this supernatural being.

      Have you examined EVERY creation myth on the planet? Can you recite the Fulani creation myth, or the Maori creation myth? Do you know the Taoist creation myth? And on what basis do you claim that a supernatural explanation must come from existing religions? Who knows what other cults may spring up in the future?

      Did the Judaism God Do It?
      a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,

      "Transmission?" What does it mean?

      b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible

      The bible makes the claim of prophecy, and the same bible makes the claim of prophetic fulfillment. Circular reasoning.

      Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender for this supernatural being.

      Wrong premises, wrong conclusion.

      Did the Islamic God Do It?
      a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,

      What does transmission mean?

      b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)

      Until the existence of the Trinity is proven EMPIRICALLY, anyone can add or subtract from it as they wish, as is the case with all myths.

      c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran

      What do prophecies have to do with the mechanism of the creation of the Universe?

      Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.

      Did the Christian God Do It?
      a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
      b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
      Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender for answering the Which God question. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is the best answer.

      Again, what makes a few supposedly fulfilled prophecies a yardstick by which we can determine the validity of mythological accounts? Rev 13 mentions multiheaded beasts rising from the sea. How will you empirically prove such a thing? Eze 37 talks about animated bones. How are you going to prove that bones can move on their own?

      January 18, 2013 at 11:57 am |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      " Given the lack of natural explanation..."

      This is an example of an appeal to ignorance (aka Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
      "An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence."
      ( http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html )

      January 18, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
    • Simran

      And then comes the dig at the medical profession "as 900 innocents are aborted day after day by your profession"! So, now blame it on the doctors!
      Why is it okay for you to look down at others and not for others to look down upon your beliefs and practices?

      January 18, 2013 at 11:51 pm |
  10. Live4Him

    @Gir : Crafting an argument is an ETHICAL exercise. ... Give them evidence that THEY can appreciate and evaluate.

    Good points. So, here's my response: Why do I consider abortion to be morally wrong?

    1) It stills a beating heart. Almost every abortion occurs after the heart starts beating.
    2) Abortion is a symptom of a larger issue – promiscuity.
    ___ a) While s.ex is fun, the underlying motivation is self-esteem : Does this person think I'm special?
    ___ b) Movies, TV and society as a whole, pushes the message that women are not special unless they are "pretty".
    ___ c) Similar messages are directed to men: They are not special unless they are "strong" or "rich".
    ___ d) Contrary to popular belief, promiscuity only undermines a person's self-esteem – "They only want to use me."
    4) Once taking a life for convenience becomes acceptable in society, then everyone's life is in question.
    ___ a) Logan's Run (depicting a society where only those younger than 21 lived, while those older died) becomes a possibility. All that is needed is "proper justification".

    January 18, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • Saraswati

      You left out a #3 last time you posted this and it still appears to be missing. If you're going to keep posting you might want to update the master file with the missing item as well as responses to the issues people previously raised.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:37 am |
    • Gir

      "1) It stills a beating heart. Almost every abortion occurs after the heart starts beating."

      A beating heart indicates life? By whose standard?

      2) Abortion is a symptom of a larger issue – promiscuity.
      ___ a) While s.ex is fun, the underlying motivation is self-esteem : Does this person think I'm special?

      By whose standard? Do you claim to be in the minds of EVERYBODY on the planet?

      ___ b) Movies, TV and society as a whole, pushes the message that women are not special unless they are "pretty".
      ___ c) Similar messages are directed to men: They are not special unless they are "strong" or "rich".

      Yes, idealization is rampant in our culture. So what? Ideals exist so we can strive towards them to better ourselves. What makes your own ideal of biblical inerrancy correct?

      ___ d) Contrary to popular belief, promiscuity only undermines a person's self-esteem – "They only want to use me."

      Again, are you in everyone else's minds? Do you claim a universal perspective? And note here that your claim is admittedly in conflict with the widely-held belief.

      4) Once taking a life for convenience becomes acceptable in society, then everyone's life is in question.
      ___ a) Logan's Run (depicting a society where only those younger than 21 lived, while those older died) becomes a possibility. All that is needed is "proper justification".

      Classic Slippery slope.
      ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
      All you have done here is claim a series of absolutes without bothering to back them up. Again, get out of your religionist mindset and get into your readers' shoes for a brief moment. Understand that not everyone sees the world through your eyes.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:38 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Saraswati : You left out a #3 last time you posted this and it still appears to be missing.

      Would it make you feel better if I did? I'm asking because then you couldn't nit-pick and may need to address the facts instead.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:45 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Gir : A beating heart indicates life? By whose standard?

      Among others, our court system. Why do you dispute this fact?

      @Gir : By whose standard?

      You seem to think this falsifies a premise. Not even close. However, there is a link between s.ex and pregnancy (even if you want to deny it). There is also a link between s.ex outside of marriage and abortion.

      @Gir : Yes, idealization is rampant in our culture. So what?

      Well, because it demoralizes people – leading to a feeling of inferioity. One can rarely measure up to an ideal. And when they do, they see beyond the ideal to a related cost.

      @Gir : What makes your own ideal of biblical inerrancy correct?

      Non Sequitor. I've addressed this in another post, so it doesn't belong here.

      @Gir : Do you claim a universal perspective? And note here that your claim is admittedly in conflict with the widely-held belief.

      Scientific studies reveal this fact. Why didn't you know this?

      @Gir : Classic Slippery slope.

      Just because it is a classic, doesn't mean that it isn't accurate. When you look at history, people are always pushing the bounds. Faster cars, easier communications, more information, etc. What makes you think that morals are any different?

      January 18, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • Poltergeist

      "A beating heart indicates life? By whose standard?" A biology book.

      "By whose standard? Do you claim to be in the minds of EVERYBODY on the planet?" By his and they were pretty good standards. Today all I hear people complaining about the 'good ones' they can't find.

      "Classic Slippery slope...
      Works when there is evidence to back it. Such as the astounding leap in fatherless families and the skyrocketing divorce rate, and poverty,all which have been linked to break down of the nuclear family.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • Gir

      "Among others, our court system. Why do you dispute this fact?"

      The same court system makes exceptions for abortions. Why do you conveniently ignore this fact?

      "You seem to think this falsifies a premise. Not even close."

      A premise is considered unsound if it lacks BASIS. Again, which STANDARD are you using here, and why should we respect it? I reiterate: think about YOUR READERSHIP.

      However, there is a link between s.ex and pregnancy (even if you want to deny it). There is also a link between s.ex outside of marriage and abortion.

      What? Your original post was about the INTENTIONS driving promiscuity, not the consequences of s.ex or promiscuity. Where are you trying to take the discussion?

      "Well, because it demoralizes people – leading to a feeling of inferiority. One can rarely measure up to an ideal. And when they do, they see beyond the ideal to a related cost."

      Again, no basis. The point of an ideal is to strive towards it, not be demoralized by it. Their ideal of freedom did not cause our forefathers to throw up their hands and accept tyrannical British rule, but drove them to strive TOWARDS independence, and drove their descendants to extend this freedom to b-lacks, women and other groups. We STILL strive towards that ideal today. The asymptotic nature of an ideal is no reason to abandon it all together.

      "Non Sequitor. I've addressed this in another post, so it doesn't belong here."

      Touche. Read my response to that post.

      "Scientific studies reveal this fact. Why didn't you know this?"

      Because you CONVENIENTLY left those "studies" out of your argument. Again, remember: it's all about the OTHER PERSON. Don't expect ME to go dig up the (probably non-existent) evidence for YOUR claim. You make the claim, you provide proof. Till you provide the evidence, I'll assume you're employing the common "look-it-up" ploy to deflect the burden of proof from yourself.

      "Just because it is a classic, doesn't mean that it isn't accurate. When you look at history, people are always pushing the bounds. Faster cars, easier communications, more information, etc. What makes you think that morals are any different?"

      Flawed analogy. Technology is material; morality is not. Technological advancement is objective; morality is subjective. The correlation between technology and time and is definite and positive. The correlation between your moral deterioration and time is indefinite and negative.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
    • Gir

      "A biology book."

      Which biology book?

      "By his and they were pretty good standards."
      Just another opinion as baseless as the one before it.

      Today all I hear people complaining about the 'good ones' they can't find."

      Personal experience is your evidence? LOL. Looking at the party that just won the elections, it seems people don't WANT to regress back to your religionist standards for which the other party advocated.

      "Works when there is evidence to back it. Such as the astounding leap in fatherless families and the skyrocketing divorce rate, and poverty,all which have been linked to break down of the nuclear family."

      Which link is that? How was the causation link determined? How were other factors eliminated as causes? The poor economy, increasing wealth gap, shrinking middle class and increased independence of women sound like plausible factors to me. Tell my why I am wrong.

      And how is an increasing divorce rate going to lead to a paradigm of total disregard for human life?

      January 18, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Live4Him, I addressed your points last time you posted this. I'm hardly going to address the same points every time you copy and paste the same thing. I was suggesting you might want this to look better for the next set of readers by correcting what appears to be a simple typo. If you don't like the suggestion, feel free to ignore it.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Live4Him, and yes, it would make me feel better. I prefer to see a well formed argument at its best, whovevers "side" it is on.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • Jen

      Of course live ignored your previous response. Just like my question whether he/she is okay with abortions before the heart starts beating (5-6 weeks)?

      Probably not. Which makes number one completely pointless.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Akira

      Is there a #3? If it has been deleted from the original post, why?
      If it's merely a typo, why not correct it when somebody points it out instead of making a snarky remark?
      Pretty decent opinion piece, otherwise.
      For that's what it is.
      Prothero would be proud.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
    • Poltergeist

      "Which biology book?"

      Try "Biology" published by McGraw Hill.

      "Just another opinion as baseless as the one before."

      Standards are opinions genius, so are values, ethics, morality, and philosophy. They are also pillars of civilized society. Everybody can't do what they want and maintain a society at the same time. Someone's standards must be the correct. What makes your standards superior?

      "Personal experience is your evidence? LOL. Looking at the party that just won the elections, it seems people don’t WANT to regress back to your religionist standards for which the other party advocated."

      Yeah, personal experience is my evidence. A laundry list of failed marriages, baby mama dramas, and broke"used" hearts are more common than people who are satisfied. The reality of a situation trumps it's theory. Plenty of these se.x revolutionaries have emo baggage from it. And most go off to get used again. It's silly to watch the cycle. 

       Do you only believe something if it's seen on TV/internet? That's part of the problem.

      "Which link is that? How was the causation link determined? How were other factors eliminated as causes? The poor economy, increasing wealth gap, shrinking middle class and increased independence of women sound like plausible factors to me. Tell my why I am wrong."

      The economy has been up and down ever since it existed. Wealth gaps have always been huge. 50% fatherlessness, and 60% divorce rates are new. If you're not aware of the links between fatherlessness and  broken families with crime, lower education, and poverty just google 'divorce poverty' you'll get plenty of hits to chose from.

       Woman independence is a very broad term so I can't address it until you get more specific? Do you mean like voting and property rights? I don't think those have had negative impacts at all.

      "And how is an increasing divorce rate going to lead to a paradigm of total disregard for human life?" 

      an increasing fatherlessness/divorce is indicative of a change in standards. Both began to skyrocket around the mid 60's with the se.x revolution. The increase in irresponsible behavior is a reason for the rising divorce rate not the other way around. It's acceptability of taking human life for convience that would have you grand kids weighing the value of keeping you around. Though a divorce probably wouldn't help your case.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
  11. Bill Deacon

    Gir, I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. That is my point. I don't need to prove the existence of God in order to make my argument. I am simply informing you that my belief informs my opinions. Likewise, you and Imotep are welcome to use your beliefs or lack thereof or whatever you want to make yours. So far, the only foundation I have heard in favor of abortion is because "We like seex but don't want babies"

    January 18, 2013 at 10:57 am |
    • Gir

      Good. Now tell us why we should respect your opinions, when the validity of their basis (the christian cult) has not been established. All opinions are not equal, if that's what you're thinking. We do not give credence to the Germ theory of disease and the Evil Spirit theory of Disease Causation alike, for example, just because the latter is true in some deluded religionist's opinion.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:05 am |
    • Science

      Medical Reasons for Abortions Danger to Mother's Health
      the lady that died in Ierland because they would not provide a medical abortion.

      She wanted the baby too go figure
      Danger to Mother's Health
      Science

      At its best here and peer reviewed .No go-d(s) required. Proven right here on this tread!!!

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/17/belief-blogs-morning-speed-read-for-thursday-january-17-2013/comment-page-2/#comment-2107898 Finally RB replied.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • Science

      Thank your parents you don't live in China.
      Peace

      January 18, 2013 at 11:26 am |
    • SImran

      @ Bill,

      And what is wrong with a Hinduistic sort of argument? I live in India, I was born into a religion which has a lot in common with Hinduism, though I dont follow it. But still, I get their concept of cosidering every living being as equal.

      The point I am trying to make however is that why do you consider human life sacred and not the rest? When you state "Sancti.ty of human life" , that is what it implies. And that is what I question.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • PrimeNumber

      @gir "Good. Now tell us why we should respect your opinions......." If you call yourself a "freethinker" it's probably safest for you not to respect any other opinion than your own. Someday, you will discover someone who freethinks better than you. At that point you will have to put on the ear and eye protectors for self preservation, or admit that your thinking capacity may not be pristine. At that point, you'll start to doubt your opinions and then, well you can take it from there................

      January 18, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Gir, You are right and I will use your response as an answer to Simram. All opinions are not equal. The opinion of Hinduism is separate and distinct from that of a Catholic, as is that of a secular humanist. The reason I think you should accept my opinion is not because you believe the religious tenets on which they are founded but because they work. The evidence of the decay in our society indicates to me that the post feminist, secular liberalism we have been dining on for a generation has led to more deaths, more abandoned children, more dehumanization of men and women, more commercialization of all people, more loneliness, more divisiveness. We've been told a lie and we bought it hook line and sinker because the revolution promised so much. It has, in fact, delivered the exact conditions which it promised to rid us of and to which so many are still intoxicated by.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:49 am |
    • SImran

      "The evidence of the decay in our society indicates to me that the post feminist, secular liberalism we have been dining on for a generation has led to more deaths, more abandoned children, more dehumanization of men and women, more commercialization of all people, more loneliness, more divisiveness. "

      Wait, did I hear someone say that DARK AGES were better than today?

      Ok, so we were better when we clearly followed the Catholic church, and called those women witches, and went hunting for them and killed them for centuries using brutal startegies. Was that a good society?

      Or when the holy men launched the crusades ?

      Or when they taught that if a man ra.pes a woman, he should marry her (I wonder how lovely a life I would have had if I had been that blessed woman!)

      Or when we were okay to enslave other human beings (whose lives of course couldnot be what? sanctimonious?) Yes, bcoz they were of a different skin color.

      Or when we put Galileo on trial for stating the obvious?

      Or when it was not okay for women to vote in a secular nation?

      You really want to go there?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
    • Gir

      Typical religionist quote-mining from Prime Number right here.

      @ Prime Number Did you read the ENTIRE sentence? Why should I respect his opinion when he is backing it up with fairy tales? Yes, I have already met people who "free-think" better than me and I respect and learn from their opinions, because they provide SOUND BASES for them.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
    • SImran

      So Bill, how can you prove that your opinion works better than that of Hindus or secular humanists?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Sim, what part of the world contains the most malnourishment and orphaned children?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Sim, I'm surprised that if you are a physician you are not aware that not only was Galileo wrong when he stated the sun was the center of the universe but that he was not put on trial for his science but rather for his insistence that his theory was religiously dogmatic.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • SImran

      I would say African nations Bill.

      Now let us look at their opinion (Religious, of course, since that is the point of debate here) –

      From the wikipedia:

      The majority of Africans are adherents of Christianity or Islam. African people often combine the practice of their traditional belief with the practice of Abrahamic religions.[8][8][9][10][11][12] Abrahamic religions are widespread throughout Africa. They have both spread and replaced indigenous African religions, but are often adapted to African cultural contexts and belief systems. It was estimated in 2002 that Christians form 40% of Africa's population, with Muslims forming 45%.[13]

      January 18, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
    • SImran

      Bill, Bill, Bill....
      Do you really not know anything or you just lie to make your point!
      The internet is a wonderful tool, really. When you make a claim, please check it at wikipedia before you post it here.

      Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[9] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[9] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could be supported as only a possibility, not an established fact.[9][10] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[9] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[11][12] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences, in which he summarised the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.[13][14]

      Now do you need me to tell you exactly what heliocentrism means? It means that earth and other planets revolve around a RELATIVELY stationary sun.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
    • SImran

      The Inquisition's ban on reprinting Galileo's works was lifted in 1718 when permission was granted to publish an edition of his works (excluding the condemned Dialogue) in Florence.[137] In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV authorised the publication of an edition of Galileo's complete scientific works[138] which included a mildly censored version of the Dialogue.[139] In 1758 the general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism was removed from the Index of prohibited books, although the specific ban on uncensored versions of the Dialogue and Copernicus's De Revolutionibus remained.[140] All traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the church disappeared in 1835 when these works were finally dropped from the Index.[141]
      In 1939 Pope Pius XII, in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, within a few months of his election to the papacy, described Galileo as being among the "most audacious heroes of research... not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments".[142] His close advisor of 40 years, Professor Robert Leiber wrote: "Pius XII was very careful not to close any doors (to science) prematurely. He was energetic on this point and regretted that in the case of Galileo."[143]
      On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome,[144] Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI) cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that permits us to see how deep the self-doubt of the modern age, of science and technology goes today".[145] Some of the views he cited were those of the philosopher Paul Feyerabend, whom he quoted as saying "The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune."[145] The Cardinal did not clearly indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with Feyerabend's assertions. He did, however, say "It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views."[145]
      On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Catholic Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.[146][147] In March 2008 the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Nicola Cabibbo, announced a plan to honour Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls.[148] In December of the same year, during events to mark the 400th anniversary of Galileo's earliest telescopic observations, Pope Benedict XVI praised his contributions to astronomy.[149] A month later, however, the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Gianfranco Ravasi, revealed that the plan to erect a statue of Galileo in the grounds of the Vatican had been suspended

      January 18, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      A RELATIVELY stationary sun. That's hilarious.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • Damocles

      The sun moves, yeah?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • SImran

      Yes Bill, I did put it in caps for a reason.

      The relativity is in relation to the planets. THE SUN DOES MOVE.

      The Apex of the Sun's Way, or the solar apex, is the direction that the Sun travels through space in the Milky Way, relative to other nearby stars. The general direction of the Sun's galactic motion is towards the star Vega in the constellation of Lyra at an angle of roughly 60 sky degrees to the direction of the Galactic Center.
      The Sun's orbit around the Galaxy is expected to be roughly elliptical with the addition of perturbations due to the galactic spiral arms and non-uniform mass distributions. In addition the Sun oscillates up and down relative to the galactic plane approximately 2.7 times per orbit. It has been argued that the Sun's passage through the higher density spiral arms often coincides with mass extinctions on Earth, perhaps due to increased impact events.[123] It takes the Solar System about 225–250 million years to complete one orbit of the galaxy (a galactic year),[124] so it is thought to have completed 20–25 orbits during the lifetime of the Sun. The orbital speed of the Solar System about the center of the Galaxy is approximately 251 km/s.[125] At this speed, it takes around 1,190 years for the Solar System to travel a distance of 1 light-year, or 7 days to travel 1 AU.[126]
      The Sun's motion about the center of mass of the Solar System is complicated by perturbations from the planets. Every few hundred years this motion switches between prograde and retrograde.[127]

      January 18, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • SImran

      Bill,
      I know it is mean of me to say this, but I simply cannot hold back my urge.

      Who is the fool now?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
    • Gir

      The sun also moves around the center of the galaxy, which is thought to be a super-massive back hole.

      Kogut, A. et al. (1993). "Dipole Anisotropy in the COBE Differential Microwave Radiometers First-Year Sky Maps". Astrophysical Journal

      January 18, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
    • SImran

      And I made Bill disappear!
      Never mind, tomorrow will be another day.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I don't think it takes much of a limb for me to say you sir are a fool. For three reasons.

      The first is that you posit that the sun is relatively stationary as a support for heliocentrism which is the same mistake Galileo made. The second is that you contravene yourself and then say the sun moves, which of, course it does. The third is that you took a perfectly fruitful and cogent discussion between me and others on abortion as a advantage or impediment to a just society and reduced it to a diatribe against the Catholic church on a matter that has been settled for, at the least decades and has nothing whatsoever to do with the complex issues of abortion in a modern society and have the nerve to identify as a physician.

      But I am a fool for my part which is that I allowed you to do so up till this point.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
    • SImran

      Thanks for the update Gir

      January 18, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      The illusion that you made me disappear is as false as the illusion that abortion is morally justifiable. It's called lunch doctor. Remind me not to allow you to diagnose any symptoms I might present.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
    • SImran

      Cling to your Church all you might Bill, but what explanations your church puts forth to now clean up for what they did doesnot change what happened.
      Now let me remind you that the discussion started with when you stated that our society has degenerated (as per your opinion) bcoz we have moved away from your beliefs towards feminism and liberation (BTW I am a woman) and then I brought up Galiileo and you tried to state what apologies your church has tried to put forth.
      The fact that sun moves was not initially recognized by Galileo or Copernicus. And sorry, the Church holds no claim either. So that was not the reason your church put Galileo on trial. Copernicus and Galileo did pave the way towards the heliocentric model of our solar system and then others built on it. Pretty much like you have been building on the lies of your own church! But the difference is – what they built has been in a constructive direction.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
    • SImran

      Bill,
      I donot diagnose patients on the internet. But if you do come to me one day, I will still treat you with the same compassion as any other patient.
      BTW, I never brought up my profession in my discussion with you, I stated it for Saraswati when she brought up a study which I thought was not proof enough for her claims. You carried the grudge with you – does your church teach you to judge people?

      January 18, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • SImran

      Now getting back to the original point – why do you say SANCT.IITY of human life? Why do you consider human life any more sacred than animal or plant life?
      That is where the whole discussion started.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Well, again doctor. what does that have to do with the abortion debate? I'm surprised that you admit Galileo was in fact wrong in his initial theory which is precisely what what the church said when they acknowledged it could be put forth as a scientific theory to be tested. Galileo's mistake was insistence that heliocentrism was confirmed in the Scripturally, which it is not coupled with the fact that he publicly ridiculed his benefactor who happened to be the pope. The apologies the church has made are not because they suspected his science, which they rightly did. The apologies were for the biased and political manner in which his house arrest was conducted. That behavior was unbefitting a pope though perhaps understandable from a human perspective.

      But again, I ask, why is a supposedly educated person reviving an red herring and dead argument in the midst of a rare and congenial discussion on a current topic?

      January 18, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      You should know that this is a public forum. Anything you post here can and will be picked up by others and used. Yes, I am trained by education and experience to judge others in the sense that I can tell good work from poor and quality from mundane. Passing judgement is another matter and i trust that you can differentiate between the two. Your arguments are mundane and while I am not conversant with all of Hinduisms tenets, I do know that in the western world we ascribe a theory of dominion and stewardship over creation that Hinduism does not. That is why our cities are not overrun with cattle and vermin.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      It is not your compassion I question but rather your judgement

      January 18, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
    • SImran

      Bill
      In my very first post, I never stated Galileo was completely right, did I? I stated that Galileo was put to trial. Now the version the church gives you is that he made fun of the church. SO?

      Sorry, but your chuch's opinion here is not in harmony with the rest of the world. Galileo was put on trial bcoz the Copernican doctrine violated the scripture. Was Galileo asking them to change scripture?

      Galileo responded to criticism of his Copernican views in a December 1613 Letter to Castelli. In his letter, Galileo argued that the Scripture–although truth itself–must be understood sometimes in a figurative sense. A reference, for example, to "the hand of God" is not meant to be interpreted as referring to a five-fingered appendage, but rather to His presence in human lives. Given that the Bible should not be interpreted literally in every case, Galileo contended, it is senseless to see it as supporting one view of the physical universe over another. "Who," Galileo asked, "would dare as.sert that we know all there is to be known?"

      January 18, 2013 at 2:44 pm |
    • SImran

      Trained by education – given by the Church I presume. Since as per me, your arguments also seem pretty defensive, like those of the church. Since you think that people who do not believe the church's version of Galileo affair are fools.

      So you do think that feminism and liberalism has led to the downfall of the human society then?

      January 18, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • SImran

      Now about the cattle and vermin thing – your argument would not work for Africa and South America, you see. Apparently, the same set of beliefs doesnot work there, the ones you mistakenly think work for you and give you an edge of superiority over others.
      Now for my judgement, I guess the board of medicine doesnot agree with you, since they obviously certifed me. But I didn;t rub that in your face, though you keep bringing it up!

      January 18, 2013 at 2:53 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Sim, I find this tiresome. I'm not really concerned with the flawed science of an egocentric scientist and the failed exercise of a self indulgent pope that happened some five centuries ago. Though an improved theory from Ptolemy, Galileo was still substantially wrong. He was mistreated by the pope, though leniency was conferred and his stature has been reinstated by the Church. It's a dead horse. Why not let it lie and spend your valuable time as a physician explaining to young women how promiscuous seexual activity endangers them?

      January 18, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I would have had more respect for you had you enlisted Bruno as your witness for church atrocities. In which case, I would have plead mea culpa. That fact would have also done nothing to dismantle my argument that abortion is a band aid on a cultural malady that only a conversion of conscience can heal. The reason I think you are a fool is because you would rather flog that dead horse of Galileo and Urban into the ground to win some kind of superiority victory than to deal with the issues which are causing hundreds of thousands of abortions a year in this country. Unless of course, you think those are a good thing.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
    • SImran

      Bill
      You have no idea of what I do outside this forum. How can you have respect or disrespect for me without personally knowing me? And why would I care for your respect in the first place? I just mentioned Galileo once and of all the other arguments of the evil history of christianity I brought up, you were the one who tried to defend Galileo – brought up the dead horse. Why did you not speak up about witch hunts, slavery, crusades, not letting women vote??? No, did not read my first post again. Got a good memory, kind of part of my job.
      Not for one moment do I think that you are really worried about the welfare of women or their children, let alone do something constructive for them. So, dont tell me what I should do with my time!

      January 18, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
    • Poltergeist

      Read these post. I lolled when slmran implied the dark ages ended in the 60's.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
    • End Religion

      do we have a couple sources for "The [Church's] apologies were for the biased and political manner in which [Galileo's] house arrest was conducted"?

      January 18, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Because what you are practicing is a form of ad hominem wherein you disparage a persons argument by attacking their group or heritage. It's not only dishonest, it's not even good debate. But you are correct, it's none of my business what you do with your time. So you go on tilting at windmills from ages past while 900 innocents a day are aborted day after day by your profession.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      ER, there's tons of stuff on teh Galileo thing. None of it indicates anything other than what I've pasted here many many times.:

      In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by some Catholics in the last 2,000 years of the Catholic Church's history, including the trial of Galileo among others. John Paul II apologized to almost every group who had suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church through the years. Even before he became Pope, he was a prominent editor and supporter of initiatives like the Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops from 1965. As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 wrongdoings, including:
      • The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).[1

      January 18, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • End Religion

      what you've posted is a source saying the church apologized for the trial of Galileo. It does not say the apology had anything to do with how his house arrest was conducted.

      January 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Simran

      Why are you crying fowl Bill?

      Let me rephrase our previous conversation for you –
      I asked why you consider human life any more SACRED than other life and what is wrong with Hindu way of life?
      Now you stated “The opinion of Hinduism is separate and distinct from that of a Catholic, as is that of a secular humanist. The reason I think you should accept my opinion is not because you believe the religious tenets on which they are founded but because they work.”

      That is where I asked you to prove how you claim that your opinion works and “ decay in our society indicates …. post feminist, secular liberalism” . Now you have not stated anything about how you think our society is worse than the society when people did follow your opinion (without feminism and liberalism) and there were crusades, witch hunts, slavery, Galileo incident? My point is simple – I donot think society has degenerated. Every time and era has its issues, the past had theirs.

      Also, you brought in the issue of malnourishment and poverty. Of course, I could clearly see you taking a dig at India and I simply ask of you to explain why your religious opinion did not work for Africa and South America. I am yet to hear any counter-argument from you.

      Now for the personal thing Mr Bill, when you state that “ Sim, I'm surprised that if you are a physician you are not aware” – why Bill? Why am I supposed to know what HALF-BAKED LIES the Catholic church has put forth in defense of their mishandling of Galileo affair. I demonstrated to from Galileo’s letters that he tried for reconciliation by stating that holy scripture cannot be taken literally. I will know what people “OUTSIDE THE CHURCH” know – that it was a shameful act on the part of the church. And we come a full circle by you admitting that the church apologized.

      Going back to my original question Bill – why do you think human life is any more sacred?

      January 18, 2013 at 11:30 pm |
    • Simran

      And then comes the dig at the medical profession "as 900 innocents are aborted day after day by your profession"! So, now blame it on the doctors! You failed to notice that what I stated to Saraswati in the other thread, I was actually supporting your argument!
      Why is it okay for you to look down at others and not for others to look down upon your beliefs and practices?

      January 18, 2013 at 11:59 pm |
    • End Religion

      Simran, FYI, don't expect much in the way of actual conversation with Bill. He frustrates anyone who expects honesty.

      January 19, 2013 at 12:39 am |
    • SImran

      Thanks End Religion,
      I pretty much got that idea quite early in the discussion, but I sometimes chose not to walk away from nonsense some people state, but to give it back in their faces. Most days, I do walk away.

      When I read God Delusion sometime back, I felt a little offended at how Dawkins beat up Christianity, but then I get it now after having been on this blog for just a few days. These nu.tters will never provide one rationale thought and drive your patience to its limits. But then, it is how they have been conditioned! Fortunately the world is moving forwards, not backwards. And their time seems to be about over.

      January 19, 2013 at 6:54 am |
  12. Science

    At its best here and peer reviewed .No go-d(s) required. Proven right here on this tread!!!

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/17/belief-blogs-morning-speed-read-for-thursday-january-17-2013/comment-page-2/#comment-2107898

    January 18, 2013 at 10:04 am |
    • PrimeNumber

      You're right, Science. No god is required. That is the way God planned it. By remaining hidden, God allows you to exercise your free will without fear of divine interference. Then, what you do is a GENUINE of will, with all consequences on your own shoulders.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • Gir

      PrimeNumber On what basis do you claim to know god's mind? If he is hidden, how can you know his plans? Are you going throw another hissy fit like the one that produced your asinine comment below just because I asked Bill to provide evidence? If so, don't answer this question.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
  13. Sane Person

    Why is it that all the anti abortion people are people that you wouldn't want to **** in the first place?

    Like the guy in the picture.

    January 18, 2013 at 8:15 am |
    • Mohammad A Dar

      now that is a trick photograph, the photographer was holding a pro-abortion card in one hand and snapping a picture with other.

      January 18, 2013 at 8:41 am |
    • Gir

      Don't you religionists understand? Crafting an argument is an ETHICAL exercise. Think about the people you are talking to for a second. Give them evidence that THEY can appreciate and evaluate. Don't tell them to believe something just because you do.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:52 am |
    • Gir

      Oops, wrong thread.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:53 am |
  14. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    I'd like to propose a compromise: keep abortion safe, legal, and free from social stigmas, but make contraception freely available to all.

    January 18, 2013 at 8:03 am |
    • SImran

      That would be like eating your cake and having it too.
      Do you think fundies are that dumb to agree?

      January 18, 2013 at 8:08 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Yes, on their best days they about about that bright.

      January 18, 2013 at 8:10 am |
    • SImran

      Looking at the babbling about the Bible they do here, I must say you must be right!

      January 18, 2013 at 8:26 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      TT you are often uncouth and bigoted but seldom this ridiculous. If you tell me you are actually serious about this it only serves to show you have no concept about what the sanctiity of life is about.

      January 18, 2013 at 9:15 am |
    • SImran

      Why do you think human life is any more sacred than the life of the chicken you ate yesterday?

      January 18, 2013 at 9:21 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Bill, it depends with whom she's trying to compromise. It is certainly not a compromise with those who think aborting an 8 cell organism is the same as murdering a 10 year old. But for the majority, who dislike abortion yet don't consider it murder, this is a compromise that reduces abortions (at least if implemented with the right forms of birth control).

      January 18, 2013 at 9:21 am |
    • psych ward staff

      BD: "what the sanctiity of life is about." calling the kettle black
      If we had left everything up to Catholic doctrine on contraception in the U.S. since the founding, NYC would look like Sao Paulo on steriods.

      January 18, 2013 at 9:29 am |
    • niknak

      Hey, its Billybob Deacon Blues, back to enlighten us about the sky fairy.

      How you comming with that homework assignment we gave you about providing us some proof of your imaginary friend?

      January 18, 2013 at 9:40 am |
    • tallulah13

      Bill Deacon: Celibacy doesn't work. Humans reproduce. That's what they do best. A world with unfettered population growth will be one of famine, pandemics and violence. Is that what you mean by "sancti.ty of life"?

      Sane people don't want that world. Birth control is vital to the survival of the human race.

      January 18, 2013 at 9:52 am |
    • niknak

      You never got back to us with that question I had for you about divorce, Billybob.

      Have you fundies figured out what happens in your family when a fundie gets a divorse?
      You know, is your ex-wife still your sister or not?

      January 18, 2013 at 9:52 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      niknak, Sorry, that's not my homework. It's yours

      Simram Yes, humans are more valuable than chickens, or sea turtles, or dolphins. But we have laws to protect unborn turtles and dolphins, just not humans.

      Sara, once again, you are a bright spot in the dark. I understand that TT's position is that contraception limits pregnancy and thus lowers abortions. This position presumes that people are incapable of confining their seexual urges to venues which would support the natural and intended consequences of the behavior. I find that presumption demeaning to all mankind, especially women. Critics claim the Catholic church represses women when in truth, it is our overly seexualized society and message of "liberation" that entraps women with the illusion that they can and should block, frustrate, and even abort the force of life. At the same time, this society seduces men into true mysogeny with messages that women are nothing more than seex objects to be used and discarded and that they too can deny their procreative gift, reducing seex to little more than a sporting pastime. Look around at the vast numbers of divorces and unfulfilled people who have spurned true intimacy and connection with life in favor of the illusion.

      January 18, 2013 at 9:56 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Tallulah, At least you are consistent. Margret Sanger was a eugenicist also.

      January 18, 2013 at 9:57 am |
    • SImran

      Not suggesting that humans are not valuable here Deacon. Just asking why they are more valuable than chicken?
      Is it bcoz they are SACRED or bcoz killing of humans by other humans would go against the altruistic nature of society?

      If you want to bring in turtles and dolphins, also talk of dogs and cats and rats and mosquitoes and oysters...... are there laws to protect them too? Or just the ENDANGERED SPECIES of the habitat?

      January 18, 2013 at 10:01 am |
    • tallulah13

      Choice is not eugenics, Bill. Birth control allows families to have only those children they can afford to feed and shelter.

      I am curious why you advocate disease, famine and increased infant mortality. You talk about the "sancti.ty of life", yet you would condemn humanity to a horrific fate. If this is a christian trait, I am glad to be an atheist.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:02 am |
    • niknak

      No deacon blues, it is your burden to provide the proof of the hypothesis that you have put forth.
      Your claim is that god exists, and is the reason for our existence.
      It is your burden to provide the proof of that, not mine to provide the proof of it's non-existence.
      It is impossible to provide proof of something that does not exist.

      Look bro, I could care less that you waste your time believing in your stone age myth. It is your time to waste.
      But you fundies are not content to just waste your time, you require us to waste our time believing with you.
      We want you fundies to stop trying to force your fairy tale on us thru our government, our science, our medicine, our schools and our bedrooms.
      You want to howl at the moon, go ahead. Just stop trying for force us to howl along with you.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:04 am |
    • Saraswati

      "This position presumes that people are incapable of confining their se'xual urges to venues which would support the natural and intended consequences of the behavior."

      I'm sure alot (though not all) people are capable of restricting their se'xual urges. Where we differ is in thinking that restricting them down to the point you're talking about. Se'xual frequency is a solid predictor of both happiness and the strength of a relationship. It has evolved with humans to encourage pair bonding after mating, and as such draws people together. Basically, se'x is good, at least in, or as an initiationtoo, monagamous relationships, and I am not going to hop into people's bedrooms to see exactly what relationships they're in. Like yourself, I respect the ability of heterose'xual women to make their own decisions. If they can restrict their se'xual behavior as you describe, they can certainly choose their partners and when and how often to engage in se'x. (I obviously equally respect my fellow lesbian's, but we're kind of irrelevant here.)

      January 18, 2013 at 10:12 am |
    • End Religion

      church's sanctity of life = forcing birth with the goal of more witches to burn

      January 18, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Reading more on Margret Sanger and thought this was interesting;

      However, Sanger was opposed to excessive seexual indulgence. She stated "every normal man and woman has the power to control and direct his seexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells thinking deeply, are never sensual."

      January 18, 2013 at 10:23 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Sim Simply put, humans are of a higher order than animals. Unless you are trying to make a sort of Hinduistic argument, I can't imagine where you are headed with this chicken thing.

      Tallulah if you want to address my points about the value of intimacy between committed partners, I'm glad to but forgive me if I don't eat your straw.

      Nik The existence of God has been reasonably proven to me. Therefore I make my argument from that foundation. If you lack conviction of any evidence you've been exposed to, that really isn't my problem. Its yours but it doesn't negate my argument for life simply because you reject the basis for my construct.

      Sara, I hope you aren't telling me that the large percentage of abortions in this country are for women who are in committed, nurturing relationships who make thoughtful and well planned choices. I think you and I both know and I hope most are at least honest enough to admit that many many women use abortion as a retroactive birth control method which mitigates the consequences of not being nurturing, thoughtful or good planners

      January 18, 2013 at 10:35 am |
    • Jen

      Why would it be more demeaning to women then men that neither group can confine their s-xual urges to situations (that you consider) appropriate? That makes no sense at all.

      What you are really insinuating is that more blame can be assigned to the woman if they have s-x in (again what you consider) inappropriate situations. The man is less at fault.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:36 am |
    • Jen

      Bill, you're not trying to argue that there aren't a large percentage of married women getting abortions are you? And you're trying to argue that the practical solution to married women having abortions is for them to only have s-x when they are trying to reproduce right? I'm mean, you can't possibly call that the practical solution.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:43 am |
    • tallulah13

      Bill, humans have been reproducing for much longer than your god has been around. That's why we're a successful species. Physical intimacy is an important part of healthy marriages. You can choose celibacy all you want, but you can't change human nature. You really don't care about the welfare of your fellow humans, do you? You are just angry that you can't force your own peculiar lifestyle on others.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • Gir

      "The existence of God has been reasonably proven to me."

      So what? You're trying to convince us of something. Prove it to US. Tell us why WE should believe you. Give us EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Stop thinking about yourself for a minute and make considerations for the people you're talking to. If you can't, then stop talking. What you're displaying here is typical, baseless religionist arrogance.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:50 am |
    • Imhotep

      @Bill
      The existence of Anu, Osiris, Odin, Gilgimesh, Santa Claus, Tinkerbell have been reasonably proven to me. Therefore I make my argument from that foundation. If you lack conviction of any evidence you've been exposed to, that really isn't my problem. Its yours but it doesn't negate my argument for life simply because you reject the basis for my construct.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:52 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Bill, while most women who have abortions are unmarried, most are in monogamous relationships. Of course those who are younger (and therefore sensibly not married) and less financially stable are going to be less likely to be in a position to raise a child, but it does not mean they made a bad decision, except as you are defining it based on your assumption that the risk of needing an abortion is such a bad thing that it overwhelms the good of youthful relationships. If the people I knew in college married the the folks they then dated I'm sure most would be divorced by now. But I believe their lives were enriched by those relationships, and the depth strengthened by the se'xual component.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      No Jen, I'm not trying to blame women more than men. In fact, I hold men more accountable. All I'm trying to say is that men and women are affected differently by the skewed culture we live in. So skewed in fact that , as pointed out below, anyone who doesn't buy into it is considered "peculiar". I do think that women are more adversely affected by this culture but I suspect that my thinking is filtered through a mindset that minimizes damage to men.

      I'm saddened by yours and tallulah's responses because they indicate to me that you both have immersed in the post feminist thinking I am describing and can't or won't acknowledge that possibility. Look, I'm not a prude and I've been around the block at time or two. I'm just trying to tell you that to believe that people are not capable of responsible seexual behavior and that they can "sport" without consequences is delusional.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Gir

      Don't you religionists understand? Crafting an argument is an ETHICAL exercise. Think about the people you are talking to for a second. Give them evidence that THEY can appreciate and evaluate. Don't tell them to believe something just because you do.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Jen

      I agree with you that both men and women need to take more responsibility. But I feel that your solution is to only have s-x to procreate. That's not a practical solution. Let's try to be realistic.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:56 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Oops posted this above by mistake

      Gir, I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. That is my point. I don't need to prove the existence of God in order to make my argument. I am simply informing you that my belief informs my opinions. Likewise, you and Imotep are welcome to use your beliefs or lack thereof or whatever you want to make yours. So far, the only foundation I have heard in favor of abortion is because "We like seex but don't want babies"

      January 18, 2013 at 10:58 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Gir, my evidence is 55 + million abortions, rampant divorce and serial relationships, destruction of families, pronography, STD's, single mothers in epidemic proportions. Can you really look at these social realities and tell me that personal restraint is not a valuable consideration and that what we need is just better access to birth control and abortion? If your goal is to set the sail for a better and more just society, I'm afraid your simply bailing water.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:03 am |
    • psych ward staff

      And back to square one where, from bill's last list, abortion and STD's might be significantly reduced if sky fairydom didn't officially discourage use of contraception.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:15 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Bill, you're leaving out the point I made about se'x strengthening relationships. So, we have:

      1. Relationships are a good thing and se'x strengthens them
      2. Se'x is enjoyable in itself
      3. Individuals are hurt by having too many babies or babies they aren't in a position to support either financially or emotionally
      4. Society is hurt when we have too many babies born to parents who can't support them financially or emotionally
      5. The environment is seriously damaged by having too many people.

      Now if you don't like se'xmuch (and believe others are similar to you) and you don't believe the research that shows it helps people bond then the rest is pretty irrelevant. But if you do think se'x is important and valuable and that in today's society marrying in your teens is a bad idea, then you need to consider the rest. The first line is of course exercising selectivity in choosing how often and with whom to have se'x, but for most people it's going to be more often and with less restrictions than what you recommend. Next we throw birth control into the mix, with as wide availability and education as possible. Finally, we provide abortion when this fails.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:16 am |
    • tallulah13

      Bill, reproduction is a species imperative. That is why our bodies create chemicals to drive us to desire s.ex. In times when the world was less populous, this was a good thing. Now that we have the ability to cure diseases and live longer, healthier lives, our population has exploded, and overpopulation is a major concern. This is why birth control is vital to human survival and success.

      The desire for physical intimacy is not driven by media or society. There is nothing dirty or wrong about it. It is simply a human thing. And we are all simply humans.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:19 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Bill

      "Gir, my evidence is 55 + million abortions, rampant divorce and serial relationships, destruction of families, pronography, STD's, single mothers in epidemic proportions. Can you really look at these social realities and tell me that personal restraint is not a valuable consideration and that what we need is just better access to birth control and abortion? If your goal is to set the sail for a better and more just society, I'm afraid your simply bailing water."

      We didn't have widespread personal restraint before. What we had was people marrying in their teens which isn't an option with today's movement of people and educational demands. It also wasn't an ideal world before...millions of women lived in abusive relationships they couldn't get out of, teenagers who became pregnant were runaways who ended up on the fringes of society. Sure we have some new "bad things" now, but we have improvements as well.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • SImran

      @ Bill,

      And what is wrong with a Hinduistic sort of argument? I live in India, I was born into a religion which has a lot in common with Hinduism, though I dont follow it. But still, I get their concept of cosidering every living being as equal.

      The point I am trying to make however is that why do you consider human life sacred and not the rest? When you state "Sancti.ty of human life" , that is what it implies. And that is what I question.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:38 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Sara, If I may continue the same analogy, You are saying "Well at least the boat isn't sinking" Most abortion advocates will ultimately admit that it is a tragic occurrence. Personally I think it is a mistake to outlaw abortion and have no response to the conditions which drive it as an option. Pope Jean Paul II said "It is impractical to speak about the right to life without also addressing the causes of hunger, health care and workers rights." So simply outlawing abortion won't create an environment in which abortion is not needed. Such an environment can only be created by individuals who, of their own free will, demand they not be treated or treat others as objects for their own gratification.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Sara and tallulah. Interesting. You seem to be making the same argument I am in regards to human bonding. I maintain that seex is good and bonding in relationship and so do you. The problem as I see it is that people put the seexual aspect in front of the relational one. This leads to multiple partners, failed families and a sense of loss and loneliness when "pushing the same button" stops yielding the desired outcome. Along the way, people who have been victimized by their own belief that seex = intimacy are driven into abortionists offices to stem the tide of consequences. It is truly sad and as I said, especially for women who have been told that not only they can they have seex without emotional,spiritual and psychological impact but that they can then abort their children with none either.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
    • doris

      Bill – "as I said, especially for women who have been told that not only they can they have seex without emotional,spiritual and psychological impact"

      But, Bill – who are you to assume what women are told? Or are you just concluding that as a result of observing different types of activity that doesn't fall into line with your belief system?

      January 18, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      doris, did you mean to ask "who am I to read the cover of Cosmopolitan in the check out line"?

      January 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
  15. ???????

    Reviewing the comments noticed someting interesting. Science PROVED it does not work the way the bible said it does.
    All the facts are here on this tread. Peer reviewed !!!

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/17/belief-blogs-morning-speed-read-for-thursday-january-17-2013/#comments

    January 18, 2013 at 7:55 am |
  16. Rational Libertarian

    I just noticed the "Pray To End Abortion" guy in the picture. Scary dude.

    January 17, 2013 at 11:46 pm |
    • Tadaa

      That's your mirror, Mr. Misogyny.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:28 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Cvnts

      January 18, 2013 at 12:32 am |
    • sam stone

      Yeah, he sure looks like he is full of the spirit of jeebus

      January 18, 2013 at 5:09 am |
    • sam stone

      Apparently, god does not want abortion to end. All the good pious people praying and praying for it to stop and it doesn't. What is it that the pious say that god answers prayers? Apparently, god's answer to them is "no"

      January 18, 2013 at 7:09 am |
    • tallulah13

      The man in the picture looks angry and unpleasant. This is the impression he gives with his facial expression. I believe it is deliberate. Commenting on it is not misogyny.

      January 18, 2013 at 9:55 am |
  17. Reality

    And the irony of ironies:

    IF THE PILL AND MALE CONDOMS WERE USED PROPERLY, ABORTION WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE AND OBAMA WOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT.

    See p. 3 for added details – the section on the brutal effects of stupidity.

    January 17, 2013 at 10:40 pm |
    • Observer

      Nonsense. Bush was a bigger factor in getting Obama elected than abortion.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:55 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      White guilt was the biggest factor.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:56 pm |
    • Hmmmmmm

      You know rational, you are getting meaner and meaner as the days go by. Perhaps you might want to knock off and do something else for a while. It's not good to get so bitter. Life is good! Have fun with this or leave.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:15 pm |
    • Akira

      Why on earth would Obama getting elected hinge on birth control or abortion?
      It wasn't in 2008, and it isn't the reason why he was re-elected this time, either.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:19 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Hmmmmm

      I do enjoy life. I'm also aware that many white, middle-class liberals feel they are indebted to non-whites, particularly blacks.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:24 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @RL, I've got to agree with Hmmmmm. I think you need a breather...real world break. Smell the roses and all that.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:28 pm |
    • Alowiscious

      Apparently Libertarianism is every bit as effective as conservativism in turning it's followers into sour rage-filled haters.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:29 pm |
    • Akira

      Really, RL? In what way?
      I've never observed that at all...indebted?

      January 17, 2013 at 11:30 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      You're on here as often as I am, although I admit I've been extra vigilant this week as I have been bedridden with influenza. Also, I don't smell roses. I mercilessly crush them underfoot.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:31 pm |
    • Observer

      Bigotry isn't limited to people picking on gays.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:31 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I think it's to do with slavery and the civil rights issue. White liberals are guilty and give non-whites preferential treatment. That's how hate crime laws and affirmative action (especially) arose.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:33 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Rl, but I'm not the one pulling a psycho notable enough to have multiple people commenting in multiple threads.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:33 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Observer

      No it isn't.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:34 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Observer

      Sorry, I meant yes it is. Freudian slip.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:36 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Observer

      Sorry again. Correct first time.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:37 pm |
    • End Religion

      "I don't smell roses. I mercilessly crush them underfoot"
      I LOLed... RL, hope your flu gets better soon!

      January 17, 2013 at 11:46 pm |
    • Akira

      Well, I certainly think that is an unsubstantiated blanket statement if I ever heard of one, RL.
      I don't think that white liberals are any guiltier than white conservatives or white libertarians.
      In fact the guilty people have died long ago, and I certainly do not think that granting blacks equal rights was a product of guilt, either.
      Hate crimes arose out of hate.
      Simple as that.

      Observer:
      Yep.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:46 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I never said giving blacks civil rights arose from guilt. I'm saying whites are guilty because of the difficult process. Hate crimes are totally discriminatory.

      End Religion
      Thank you, it's always nice to make somebody who isn't a confrontational b!tch laugh.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:50 pm |
    • End Religion

      RL, have a Grape Nehi. It'll make you smile! Especially if you have a handful of psilocybin shrooms with it.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:56 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      End Religion

      Call me an old fogey but I'm staunchly anti drugs.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:59 pm |
    • Akira

      I know you didn't say it, RL, I just pointed it out as part of my opinion...I don't feel that whites are doing anything out of guilt, but rather out of it being the right thing to do.
      Perhaps what you say may have been prevalent in the past; I just don't think that President Obama was elected out of white guilt.
      I think he was elected because of his merits, whether you agree with said merits or not.
      You have yourself a fine evening, and from one b!tch to another, good night.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:02 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      To be honest, I'm kinda glad white guilt kicked in to save us from those retards McCain and Romney.

      Good night.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:09 am |
    • Saraswati

      It's better to accept humans are who they are. You can improve use by education but it will never reach the standard you seek anymore than humans are likely to just realize they should all stop overeating and start exercising and leave us a 100 % fit society. Humans are.imperfect, and unless you accept it, maybe even learn to enjoy it, you'll always be less happy thanyou could be. You might try reading more. Literature can be a good at appreciating the inevitable human frailties. Even laughing at them, as Terry Pratchet does.

      January 18, 2013 at 6:08 am |
    • Reality

      Why the Christian Right no longer matters in presidential elections:

      Once again, all the conservative votes in the country did not help the "pro-life" presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, in 2012 as the "Immoral Majority" rules the country and will be doing so for awhile. The "Immoral Majority" you ask?
      The fastest growing USA voting bloc: In 2008, the 70+ million "Roe vs. Wade mothers and fathers" of aborted womb-babies" whose ranks grow by two million per year i.e. 78+ million "IM" voters in 2012.

      2008 Presidential popular vote results:

      69,456,897 for pro-abortion/choice BO, 59,934,814 for "pro-life" JM.

      2012 Presidential popular vote results

      65,899,660 for pro-abortion/choice BO 60,929,152 for pro-life MR

      And the irony once again:

      And all because many women fail to take the Pill once a day or men fail to use a condom even though in most cases these men have them in their pockets. (maybe they should be called the "Stupid Majority"?)

      The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and S-TDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or condoms properly and/or use other safer birth control methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.

      January 18, 2013 at 6:44 am |
    • Akira

      RL, although I disagree with the reason you think that President Obama was elected, I will agree that given who was running against him, this was the best outcome...

      Sarawati, Terry Pratchet is awesome!

      January 18, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Akira

      To be honest, I'd say the real reason Obama was elected was to keep the other nitwits out.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Akira, Pratchet is indeed awesome. I was thinking about him also during the alzheimer's thread unfortunately. He is great at appreciating life in all its imperfection.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
  18. Rational Libertarian

    Tom's is used as a particle accelerator.

    January 17, 2013 at 10:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Aww. You poor kid.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:31 pm |
    • Akira

      Um, with all due respect, you're not sounding very rational right now...

      January 17, 2013 at 10:43 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Hey, Tom, Tom, what did you do to get RL's knickers in a knot?

      January 17, 2013 at 10:46 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      With all due respect, that's a matter of opinion.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:50 pm |
    • Akira

      Yes, it is a matter of opinion, and my opinion is that you're not sounding very rational right now.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:06 pm |
    • Saraswati

      I couldn't figure out what TT did, but the reaction has been pure mysogynistic as$hole...nothing warrants that crap.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:09 pm |
    • Akira

      Sara, I don't either, but I feel the same way; misogyny is such an ugly thing to behold.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:15 pm |
    • Larry

      You know RL, if you don't like someone's behavior, doing worse just makes you a worse version of what you despise.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:18 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Tom can dish it out so she can take it too. All those who disagree can suck a lemon. She is a colossal cvnt of gargantuan proportions. Pantagruel is likely her partner's name.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:28 pm |
    • Hmmmmmmmmmm

      A vacation will do you a world of good. I don't mean to insult you at all, but you are very quickly ending up exactly like Tom Tom – a hate-puker who has permanently discredited himself.

      Turn off the computer, get out and enjoy the real world, and get a hold of yourself.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:34 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      If I recall correctly, we agreed recently to try and be more civil. About two nights ago we had a disagreement, which was to be expected seeing as how she's the archetypal liberal and I'm a libertarian. She was probably bettering me, as she tends to do everybody. However, she made an invalid point and I called her on it. The argument had been civil until then but she resorted to ad hominems instead of answering me. From now on she will get the same treatment.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:25 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      So, in other words, it was a standard fair with TT.

      January 18, 2013 at 9:19 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Pretty much Bill, pretty much.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Oops, preemptively chastising myself for using "fair" in place of "fare"

      January 18, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What has RL panties in a wad is that we disagree on the legality of the law forcing Hobby Lobby to offer a health care plan that covers contraceptives, as the ACA now requires. I stated that companies must abide by all kinds of regulations, including safety regulations under OSHA. RL for some reason got incensed because I declined to argue about what was relevant about my comment concerning OSHA. That's when he decided I was a cvnt.

      As for his delusion that I made any statement regarding being amicable to him, I can only say that discussing topics that are not controversial in a civil manner does not preclude my telling RL that his opinion is not fact and that he's full of sh!t as far as health care legislation is concerned.

      I suspect RL is in his 20s and views himself as some sort of caped crusader for the Libertarians. I doubt any Libertarians see him that way, though.

      January 18, 2013 at 6:40 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I love how Billy the Deek chimes in. He's had his ass handed to him and is just as mad as RL. Boo hoo!

      January 18, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
  19. Bob

    Russ, I'm not suggesting that the past be thrown away, but rather, partly that it needs to be given appropriate weighting, particularly in this case given the age of the questionable document and events being referenced. Furthermore, the apparent inability of the "omnipotent" being to produce more recent information is highly suspect in regard to the existence of that being. You can go on with more and more lengthy posts about the subject matter, but I will haul you back to this every time:

    1. Given that your "god" apparently knows our capabilities, why the use of such a stale, questionable text to get its message out, and the use of standards that we may not comprehend? A frequently retranslated text from 2000 years ago that is contradicted by our modern understanding of the world should not be accepted as certainty by any thinking person.Again I say, reasonable doubt is more than justified.

    2. Why is it that your "god" can't get with the past decade and produce his own website (no, religious shill sites don't count), or even push some tweets out? Even the pope can do the latter, as can most children.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
    Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

    January 17, 2013 at 9:54 pm |
    • Kev

      So, why would God want to use something like the Bible instead of something more empirically-based that would have some updated info? You mean like when in the Bible God wanted people to develop faith as opposed to having assured knowledge? Apparently it was just as much of a struggle for those in Biblical times as it is today, otherwise why would the concept of faith been taught so much in the Bible.

      So, it would seem that for some reason God intentionally wanted to not be made readily known to everyone both in ancient and in modern times, but to rather have faith. So the question is why would God want for us to work on developing faith? For myself I do have my own belief as to why God ways us to have faith and not be readily known to us us.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:47 am |
    • Kev

      Sorry, I was trying to correct some errors and I accidentally hit post. So, I was saying that it is my belief that God wants us to develop faith instead of having assured knowledge, and that each of us is given free will to learn, to study, and to work at developing our faith in order to see if we are willing to follow God because we choose to and not merely because we have to.

      As far as not getting updated information from God in two thousand or so years, perhaps that is not actually the case. That God does in fact give us guidance today, and that maybe God does have a website; just not the kind of website you might expect.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:07 am |
    • End Religion

      Kev, god didn't want anything. He doesn't exist. The folks running the sideshow called Christianity, now those folks want something, and they built faith into it so you will need to believe any stretch of the imagination for fear of not being in their special club.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:06 am |
    • Kev

      @ End Religion, So, your investigative reporting uncovered the results of this scandal. It's also nice to see you sites your sources to back up your statement. Oh wait, you didn't. Or maybe you were just expressing your POV. That's fine, after all that's what I was expressing. However, I at least made it a point that it was my belief. Now as to say whose POV is more valid. That cannot be made certain, but ultimately when it comes down to empirical evidence, your conclusions about the nonexistence of God is no more founded than my belief that there is an omnipotent being who does not want to be shown, but rather would have us to develop faith.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
    • End Religion

      Kev, there may be a creator, there may have been some dude in the history of our planet named Jesus, however your bible is a known fraud and we know your god and his only be-rotten son did not exist. It is a myth, a known fantasy constructed upon previous myths by ignorant, deluded and controlling medieval goat herders. The debate of fact is over, has been over for quite some time. The only "debate" left is actually just rational people trying their best to help crazy people come back to reality.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
    • Kev

      @ End Religion, So, the debate is over? That's news to me. So, who were the official judges over this debate, and why didn't you care to give details about how the judges, came to their decision; whoever they are.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Rational people were the arbiters of the debate, hence the lack of theistic representation.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • End Religion

      Kev, the blog is chock full o' the same proof over and over. Again, it is settled. We're just trying our best to bring nutters back to reality. Obviously you don't seem to understand it is settled because it is painfully obvious you are in the crazy camp. It's OK, you may have been indoctrinated into the cult early or become susceptible to the cult during a vulnerable moment in your life. Cults thrive on that stuff like a tobacco company wooing children. We are patiently trying over and over to show you the way back to reality. We leave you li'l Reese's Pieces trails but the game is stacked against us because your cult has used super-powered meth tablets for their trails into Fantasyland and our Reese's Pieces aren't as appealing.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • Kev

      @ End Religion, Do you know why there are judges in debate tournaments? It's because each side believed they are right and the other is wrong, and that's all there is to it. So, all you did was prove that the debate was settled only in your head. Of course there's Rational Libertarian's answer that rational people are the judges, which leaves out the theists, and I wonder where Rational Libertarian pull that definition of rational that means that it only pertains to atheists?

      January 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      "Consistent with or based on reason; logical." This definition of rational and theism are antonyms. Theism requires the suspension of rationality. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support theism and the so-called 'logical proofs' of a theistic deity are laughable. Belief in a personal, interventionist god is baseless. The universe may have had some kind of creator but it is evidently not a powerful god, particularly the one purported by theists.

      January 18, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • Kev

      @ Rational Libertarian, You cited a definition, but you didn't cite where that definition came in order to validate that is in fact an official definition. You also failed to connect anything proving that theism equates to illogic, just like it is illogical to assume that there is no God because there is zero empirical evidence to show that there is no God. Logic would then conclude that one needs to be at least open to the possibility of there being a God.

      January 19, 2013 at 12:26 am |
    • End Religion

      Kev, I guess theistic debates have moderators because religious people are deluded and constantly lie. They have no idea where the boundaries of truth are. Is this guess correct?

      They also have trouble with reading comprehension. RL just said, "The universe may have had some kind of creator" and earlier in the thread I said "there may be a creator". Why did you end your comment with "Logic would then conclude that one needs to be at least open to the possibility of there being a God."? Neither of us argued there wasn't a possibility. Having said that, it is a known quantity that your god doesn't exist. Can you understand the difference? One is a possibility, the other a man-made myth.

      January 19, 2013 at 9:23 am |
  20. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    "Who knows when the task of defending your own rights will fall to you, the individual, when our government is infested with religionists who can easily pass their hate-filled beliefs into law?"

    unfortunately that mind-set is exactly what started it all.

    The (English) Bill of Rights – 1688 (Julian)
    Subjects’ Arms
    That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law

    To say atheists need to arm themselves is to turn the clock back 325 years. Rule of law must mean something.

    January 17, 2013 at 9:46 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      crud – wrong spot. Reposted below.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
    • Gir

      What use would the rule of law be when the law-making apparatus is infested with religionists? Remember slavery? That was legal a short while ago too, and it was justified by the 2000 year old book of crazy.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:37 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.