You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
(via Mike Luckovich)
Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.
And yet I saw recently that an AP gfk poll showed that support for Romney was growing amongst women voters. The analysis was that women perceive him as softening his stance against women’s rights. o.O
LOL very funny!
Yeah, but do they ever ask what will his stance be next week?
As a women, and an atheist, I would vote for Romey, not because he might attempt to infringe on our rights bt because, under Shariah (Obamas true love), we wouldn’t have any rights to fight over.
A perfect Poe
You are neither a woman nor an atheist…Obama is unfortunatly a christian. Sharia? Too funny troll
Nor is she a women.
Low blow, Felyx. But seriously, Georgina, for all the crap that *can* be laid at Obama’s door, most recently the absolute travesty of his administration’s complete lack of response that the Benghazi embassy incident is being revealed to have been, on what planet are you on that you think Mr. Obama is at all likely to institute Shariah law in the USA?
I’m wondering if Georgina and geniusgirl in another comment thread aren’t hired political operatives trying to spike interest in Romney before the election. Now’s about the time to do that if you were going to.
Factually I give Georgina 1/10 pts. 1 point for using the word atheist and getting the spelling right. Obama is obnoxiously christian to most atheists (even the ones who think he’s secretly agnostic). Romney has said we have no rights (at least 47% of us) and that corporations are people (my friend). I hardly see how Romney is less threatening.
If this is frightening, it will be more frightening as the country spiral downwards fom a first to a third world country. So many right. Shouldn’t it be a right for men to visit prostitutes at taxpayers’ expense to fulfill their bodily urges?
No it should not. But if a man had sex and as a result, there was something growing inside him which would someday turn out to be a person, but currently isn’t, and if that thing would cause him emotional stress and major health problems, not to mention major financial difficulties once he gave long, painful birth to it, I’d be all for his rights to get rid of it, taxpayer money or not. (It is currently illegal for taxpayer money to be funded by abortion). And if this man wanted to have sex and wanted to prevent these horrible things from happening, I’d be all for that. (Once again, taxpayers don’t pay for that). So what exactly does a prostitute have to do with this?
I am just curious as to what IT is before it becomes a human being.
She didn’t say anything about it being human, she said “person.” “Personhood” is one of those useless philosophical terms that just complicate things, so look it up if you’d like. Personally, I think there are better arguments than “person,” since nobody can agree what that actually means but whatever.
The debate over abortion comes down to philosophy though, so “personhood” is not a useless term. (Julie certainly doesn’t seem to think it’s useless – she used it as part of her pro-abortion argument). Either a foetus is a human being, in which case it has the right not to be killed, or it’s not, in which case we can do what we like with it. If abortion is the killing of an innocent human, it should never be permitted. If it’s not, there should be no restrictions as to what can be done to it. Philosophy (the love of and pursuit of truth and wisdom) helps us here – or should do.
There are many different meanings for philosophy. The debate over abortion comes down to the version of philosophy corresponding to personal beliefs. I have no problems with personal philosophies.
The type of philosophy which concerns the definition of “person” is that which “explores reality through primarily speculative means.” In other words, it’s the version of philosophy where people simply make shit up (what I like to call mental masturbation). That’s why I call it a “useless philosophical term that just complicate[s] things.”
So, in your “personal philosophy”, or, if you like, according to how you read the science of human procreation, what is a foetus? Is it an innocent human, or is it something else?
By “foetus” I meant “product of conception” in the womb, of whatever age/stage of development – I should have been clearer.
We’re talking about whether “person” is a useful term, not what I believe about abortion. Please try to stay on topic.
Sure. “Person” and “human” are synonymous, therefore “person” is a useful term. An innocent person shouldn’t be killed; an innocent human shouldn’t be killed. On-topic enough for you?
Synonymous doesn’t mean interchangeable though. Take the words “good” and “acceptable.” They are also synonymous, but no-one wants an acceptable spouse when they can have a good one.
The same is true with “human” and “person.” The term human is well defined: it’s an organism which is a member of the species homo-sapiens. “Person,” on the other hand, is a philosophical idea concerning what exactly it means to be human, or even why it is that humans seem so “superior” to other animals. It’s specific meaning has been contentious since it’s conception. This is also the reason why I think it (and speculative philosophy in general) is useless for making arguments: nobody can agree on what it means.
So yes, “person” and “human” are somewhat synonymous, but they are not equal. When attempting to make an argument, it’s best to use well-defined terms, and “person” is not that. I think Julie’s argument would have been much better if she would have just said what she thinks makes a human a “person,” instead of just saying “what might some day turn out to be a person.” Then a real discussion could have been had.
What I find amazing is that pond-scum has managed to figure out how to type. To equate the medical control over one’s body to visiting a prostitute requires such a lack of empathy and humanity, that it calls into doubt whether you’re evolved enough to have cells arranged by tissue types.
Equating a woman’s right to choose for themselves and prostitution is absurd. You are absolutely clueless.
I am perplexed by the logic…afterall, tax dollars do not pay for things like abortion. Tax dollars barely cover women’s health outside of the paltry sum given to Planned Parenthood.
I would prefer my taxes go towards birth control and abortions than bring another unwanted and neglected child into the world. Even from a financial pov; it’s much less expensive to pay for abortions and birth control than it is to support another human life.
The return of investment is somewhere between 3:1 and 5:1
I’d like to know where you got those numbers from, and what they actually mean.
Finances are a terrible argument either for or against abortion anyway. Even though you’re both right (I assume you are, at least), it really doesn’t make any difference.
Follow Patheos on