Submitted by Simon Gallup (not verified) on 12 March, 2008 - 21:46.
How do you two bone-drivers figure on the whole abortion thing? Given how the two camps are so polarized, with so many religious types in one camp, while the secularists seemingly flocking to the "choice" camp, my kneejerk thought was that you would no doubt fit into the later? But perhaps that is oversimplifyig things? Anyways, just curious, as a consequence of Maclean's-OnCampus discussion re: York Student Federation banning scheduled debate on topic: http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/03/04/you-cant-say-that/
Jay, I won't respond to a commenter who begins by calling us derogatory names. It makes me wonder if Mr. Gallup has come here to attack you and I or discuss the abortion issue. By calling someone names, one loses one's credibility. And when a commenter demonstrates his/ her lack of credibility in the opening sentence of their comment, why waste time responding? Besides, Mr. Gallup seems to already know the answer to his question as he has pegged us a s pro-choice.
Submitted by Simon Gallup (not verified) on 17 March, 2008 - 15:20.
Apologies for any offense...I often call my friends by the same names, but in a non-serious jovial sort of way...no ad hominen attack intended. This is your site, and I will take a more to-the-point serious tone if that is what you prefer.
That said, yes, I had pegged you pro-choice...but I also conceded that was a kneejerk response...and that was perhaps oversimplifyng things. I am curious about an ardent atheist viewpoint on the topic.
On a different issue, for argument sake, let's assume I was attacking you (which I wasn't)...I would beg to differ on the "why waste time responding" comment; for your comment could potentially be viewed by others, and in turn, stimulate genuine debate on the topic...
Relatedly, does not this site exist on the basis of being deragatroy...yes, I know, it is aimed mainly at beliefs...but YOU do attack individuals from time to time...this is fine...and you are certainly welcome to attack me if you'd like...but shouldn't it perhaps work both ways...
At any rate, I am curious about the aforementioned debate...
You have me pegged correctly as pro-choice on the abortion issue. Ihaven’t been closely following the York debate issue but I’ll give you my uninformed response. As an atheist, I’m always wary of the underlying motives of religious groups when they want to bring issues to public attention. A good example is how fundamental Christians want to “teach the controversy” between Intelligent Design (which, by the way is Creationism in disguise) and evolutionary theory. Within the scientific community there is no controversy. The real reason these people want to teach the so-called controversy is to undermine science education in the public school system. More specifically they want to rid the school system of references to the theory of evolution as it threatens their bronze age belief system. They want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. In short they want us all to believe what they believe and will not be satisfied until we do.
And that’s the reason this site and many others much better than this exist. I believe in letting
people do and be what they want within the laws and agreed upon standards of society. Live and
let live. It’s when a religious group tries to impose laws and standards based on ancient
mythology to the modern society in which I live that I get up in arms.
I see the abortion issue in this light. It is wrong to impose laws based on someone’s interpretation
of the supposed words of a supernatural entity when that supernatural entity has not been
definitively proven to exist. Let’s live in reality. Each abortion case should be judged on it’s own
set of unique circumstances. There is no rigid blanket rule that effectively covers all situations
without denying the procedure to those that are in dire need. Rape and incest victims? If there
was a God, would he / she consider it fair and just that a woman spend 20 years of her life raising
and caring for a child that was the result of some deranged male’s sexual needs? I’d suggest that
any supposed god that does think it fair and just to be sadistic, wouldn’t you?
.
What would an atheist golden
What would an atheist golden shower be like?
Thank you Mr. Gallup
Mr. Gallup, thank you for the thought provoking question. Perhaps we'll consider the question as the topic of a future post.
In other words:
Don't do unto others as religions teach would be done to you if you don't do what they are telling you do.
Now, that makes perfect sense to me
Jim, as always, I knew we could count on you to clarify the situation.
How do you two bone-drivers
How do you two bone-drivers figure on the whole abortion thing? Given how the two camps are so polarized, with so many religious types in one camp, while the secularists seemingly flocking to the "choice" camp, my kneejerk thought was that you would no doubt fit into the later? But perhaps that is oversimplifyig things? Anyways, just curious, as a consequence of Maclean's-OnCampus discussion re: York Student Federation banning scheduled debate on topic: http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/03/04/you-cant-say-that/
Regards,
Simon
R. v. MORGENTALER?
It has been 20 years now since R. v. MORGENTALER, what needs debating?
Besides ...
Jay, I won't respond to a commenter who begins by calling us derogatory names. It makes me wonder if Mr. Gallup has come here to attack you and I or discuss the abortion issue. By calling someone names, one loses one's credibility. And when a commenter demonstrates his/ her lack of credibility in the opening sentence of their comment, why waste time responding? Besides, Mr. Gallup seems to already know the answer to his question as he has pegged us a s pro-choice.
Apologies for any offense...I
Apologies for any offense...I often call my friends by the same names, but in a non-serious jovial sort of way...no ad hominen attack intended. This is your site, and I will take a more to-the-point serious tone if that is what you prefer.
That said, yes, I had pegged you pro-choice...but I also conceded that was a kneejerk response...and that was perhaps oversimplifyng things. I am curious about an ardent atheist viewpoint on the topic.
On a different issue, for argument sake, let's assume I was attacking you (which I wasn't)...I would beg to differ on the "why waste time responding" comment; for your comment could potentially be viewed by others, and in turn, stimulate genuine debate on the topic...
Relatedly, does not this site exist on the basis of being deragatroy...yes, I know, it is aimed mainly at beliefs...but YOU do attack individuals from time to time...this is fine...and you are certainly welcome to attack me if you'd like...but shouldn't it perhaps work both ways...
At any rate, I am curious about the aforementioned debate...
Simon, apology accepted.
Simon, apology accepted.
You have me pegged correctly as pro-choice on the abortion issue. Ihaven’t been closely following the York debate issue but I’ll give you my uninformed response. As an atheist, I’m always wary of the underlying motives of religious groups when they want to bring issues to public attention. A good example is how fundamental Christians want to “teach the controversy” between Intelligent Design (which, by the way is Creationism in disguise) and evolutionary theory. Within the scientific community there is no controversy. The real reason these people want to teach the so-called controversy is to undermine science education in the public school system. More specifically they want to rid the school system of references to the theory of evolution as it threatens their bronze age belief system. They want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. In short they want us all to believe what they believe and will not be satisfied until we do.
And that’s the reason this site and many others much better than this exist. I believe in letting
people do and be what they want within the laws and agreed upon standards of society. Live and
let live. It’s when a religious group tries to impose laws and standards based on ancient
mythology to the modern society in which I live that I get up in arms.
I see the abortion issue in this light. It is wrong to impose laws based on someone’s interpretation
of the supposed words of a supernatural entity when that supernatural entity has not been
definitively proven to exist. Let’s live in reality. Each abortion case should be judged on it’s own
set of unique circumstances. There is no rigid blanket rule that effectively covers all situations
without denying the procedure to those that are in dire need. Rape and incest victims? If there
was a God, would he / she consider it fair and just that a woman spend 20 years of her life raising
and caring for a child that was the result of some deranged male’s sexual needs? I’d suggest that
any supposed god that does think it fair and just to be sadistic, wouldn’t you?
Post new comment