And You Wonder Why I See the Right as Anti-Woman . . .

I recently spent several hours arguing about abortion. The conversation started when a man I’d known during college scoffed at the idea that Republicans are anti-woman and said “actually, it’s the progressives who have the truly anti-woman position, what with their support of the abortion industry that harms so many women.” I read that statement and couldn’t just leave it.

I explained to him that what harms women are the situations to at they find themselves in, not abortion itself, and that if abortion were banned women would still find themselves with unplanned pregnancies and still be unable to afford to properly raise the resulting children. I told him about studies of abortion walkaways, and explained that women who want abortions and can’t get them end up disproportionately in poverty and more likely to stay with abusive partners.

I told him that the prevalence of abortion correlates not with where it is banned but rather with things like widespread birth control access and a strong social safety net. I explained that if he wants to decrease the number of abortions, he should not ignore these things and opt for a narrow focus on banning abortion. I explained that even if it was the case that banning abortions would decrease the number of them (something I’m not sure I’m entirely willing to grant), banning abortions without addressing things like unplanned pregnancies and the expense and difficulty of raising children would result in increased suffering and decreased quality of life for both women and children.

I told him that seven in ten women who have abortions say cite their inability to afford to raise a child as a reason for doing so, and that if he wants to cut down on the number of abortions he needs to address poverty. I told him that women often have abortions because they feel they can’t have another child and properly care for the children they already have. I told him he should support programs that would make it more affordable to raise children through things like childcare subsidies, universal healthcare for children, and more widespread welfare provisions for low-income women raising children.

I told him that if he wants to decrease the number of abortions he should support greater access to long-term methods of birth control, which are the most effective at preventing pregnancy but are also the most effective up front. I told him that offering long-term birth control free of charge has the potential to decrease the number of abortions by as much as 75%. I explained that if we can improve women’s ability to plan when and if to become pregnant, thereby cutting down on the number of unplanned pregnancies, the number of abortions will go down.

I explained to him, in summary, that if he wants to reduce the number of abortions, rather than narrowly focusing on banning the practice he should support comprehensive sex education, affordable access to effective birth control (especially long-term methods), social programs to make raising children more affordable, protections for pregnant workers, and reducing the stigma of unwed motherhood. I explained that we know that all of these things would reduce the number of abortions, and would do so without harming women in the process, and while increasing the quality of life of children born to these women. This, I said, was the truly pro-life solution.

I said all this, and yet he told me he was against increased birth control access (he suggested women just use abstinence or NFP if they don’t want to get pregnant). He told me he was against lifting the stigma for unwed motherhood (quite the opposite—he said he thinks there need to be more shame associated with unwed motherhood). He told me he was against programs like welfare and childcare assistance (he said women have to “take responsibility for their mistakes”). He compared abortion to the Holocaust and to slavery and spoke of innocent babies murdered and came back again and again to calling for abortion to be banned.

And all I could think is, and you wonder why I see the Right as anti-woman? This is why I see the Right as anti-woman! Because people like you care more about the legal act of banning abortion than you do about taking a moment to give a damn about women—or children, for that matter!

About Libby Anne

Libby Anne grew up in a large evangelical homeschool family highly involved in the Christian Right. College turned her world upside down, and she is today an atheist, a feminist, and a progressive. She blogs about leaving religion, her experience with the Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull movements, the detrimental effects of the "purity culture," the contradictions of conservative politics, and the importance of feminism.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Sumatur punctum, bestiae moulting, LANUGO surgit in naribus tuis.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    Once again, YOU DO NOT MAKE THE RULES HERE.

  • fiona64

    Deliberately provocative. Again. So, guess what that means?

  • fiona64

    You first, little boy.

  • fiona64

    Reply to Joseph, in moderation:

    Prove it’s not immoral.

    You assert that it is immoral; the burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion. Get busy proving it’s immoral by some universally objective
    standard.

    Wait, abortions are performed by butchers, I mean, doctors without any advance planning?

    Asinine. OB/GYNs perform abortions. But you’ve been flagged for violating Libby Anne’s policy against deliberately provocative speech.

    Please specify the material distinctions between “human” and “human being.”

    Your kidney is *human.* You are a human being (as much as it pains me to say it) — despite the obvious lack of humanity in your demeanor.

  • Lyric

    1) Lizzie is not me and I am not Lizzie.
    2) There’s no point in being a grown-up if you can’t be childish sometimes.
    3) That was obscenity, not profanity.
    4) I am sorely tempted to demonstrate “riddled with profanity” to you.

    • fiona64

      4) I am sorely tempted to demonstrate “riddled with profanity” to you.

      If it weren’t for Libby Anne’s policy (which I am trying *desperately* to follow), I would demonstrate my ability to curse like a stevedore with Tourette’s syndrome — because this dude is in dire need of a good cussing-out.

      • Quis ut Deus

        I kinda let loose on DWR, even if I did look like a 2 yo in the process:P

      • Jennifer Starr

        You’re just fine

  • Jennifer Starr

    Catalogus subiectum: file sub ‘imaginatio, distingue, defectum.’

  • Richter_DL

    No, you’re just arrogant and cling to rules to mask you have nothing much to say. If anything substantial is asked of you, you evade. Hilarious, really.

    • Joseph O Polanco

      Thank you; we’re all challenged by your unique point of view.

      • Richter_DL

        Thank you for sharing that. Maybe you could now elaborate your stance on the curse of Canaan and what definitly makes a human being?

      • fiona64

        And now you plagiarize a classic New Yorker cartoon. This is at least three instances of plagiarism on which I’ve been able to call you out *today alone.*

  • Richter_DL

    What about the curse of Canaan? Do you think that story should be acted on, too?

  • redlemon

    Oh, so suddenly you can use ad hominems?

    • Richter_DL

      He’s like that kid who plays a game and changes the rules as he sees fit. Terrible that an adult never moved past that phase mentally. Poor guy.

    • fiona64

      Oh, it’s okay if *he* does it … but it’s not okay for others. He’s a classic authoritarian in the “do as I say, not as I do mode.”

      He’s also a joke.

      • redlemon

        For me, the worst part of this is that I can’t tell if he honestly just doesn’t understand what the heck is being said to him, or if he just doesn’t care and honestly thinks he’s winning.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        I’ve dealt with this guy before on other blogs. I’m keen to his ways. He will employ amazing cognitive acrobatics to avoid his own logical dilemmas and he will copy and paste his answers from William Lane Craig and various Jehovah’s Witnesses sites. JoHo’s must spend a certain amount of hours proselytizing, that’s what he’s here doing. Trying to convert for his church.

      • redlemon

        Well, if any good has come from this conversation, it’s that my husband and daughter are currently singing “Every Sperm is Sacred” after I explained what I was reading on the computer.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Oh I love that song :)

      • Richter_DL

        A bit of both, I think. He honestly does not understand why walls of quote do not make for an argument. Also, he’s doing the more comfy door-to-door sales startegy of his cult.

        And ninja’d by the Thinker.

      • redlemon

        It’s like arguing with my dad again, except with JH thrown in.

      • Richter_DL

        Gee, I’m so sorry for you. :(

      • redlemon

        Well, on the positive side, it pretty much taught me that some people just are this ignorant and I need to accept that. And I wont get grounded for pointing out logical fallacies anymore.

      • Richter_DL

        That’s great, then. Must have been ahrd to grow up like this. Makes me appreciate my family, bad stuff and all.

      • redlemon

        It was hard. I ended up towing the line just to avoid conflicts on certain things. Like I never would have had a conversation about abortion. I guess that’s why this particular conversation has hit me so hard.

      • Richter_DL

        I imagine it brings back an awful lot of baggage.

      • redlemon

        It does, but it also brings me a sense of vindication. I finally get to say what is on my mind and not suffer the consequences. Because the whole “I use big words in a different language so I am an intellectual and you are not” REALLY bugged me growing up. REALLY BADLY.

        Plus I also really hate being treated like a second-class person.

      • Richter_DL

        He doesn’t even understand the big words very well. And his Latin is c&p. No way he has understood the other posts in Latin.

        In the end, he’s a con artist, trying to fool people into thinking he’s educated.

      • redlemon

        As my Deutsch teacher so accurately puts it, “He’s a scholar of Google Translate and studied at Google University”.

      • Richter_DL

        Hahaha. Yeah, he sure is.

        Da haben Sie sich aber eine schwierige Fremdsprache ausgesucht. :)

      • Lyric

        Well, one nice thing about a place like this: if you have to get out of the argument for your peace of mind, one of us will almost certainly cut in. (And since the trolls seem to think we’re interchangeable anyway . . .)

      • redlemon

        I do like that :) You guys are quite nice here. I can skadoo with my daughter all day and then sit down at naptime and sip some tea while I froth at the mouth.

      • Lyric

        :) I do a lot of my frothing with a baby in my lap, actually. Or pumping, which would be unspeakably boring without the internet.

        But then, I have a hell of a lot of babies. To be more specific, I have two seven-month-olds, which, I am assured, counts as a hell of a lot.

      • redlemon

        Holy crap, that makes my singular 2.5 year old seem like heaven. Except I actually have to play with her and stuff or else she’ll burn down the house. I’m sure of it.

      • Lyric

        Oh, believe me, I’m celebrating the fact that I can stick them in a play pen and (if they’re in a good mood) have five minutes before I have to go in and sort out who stole what from whom. They have recently discovered that sometimes, the other baby has toys.

      • redlemon

        I remember those days. I remember being able to make a quick dinner without a toddler trying to play ring-around-the-rosie with my pants. I can’t tell if the trade off with her actually sleeping through the night now is better or worse.

      • Lizzie

        The three year old over here is cool for the most part, unless it gets quiet. You don’t want quiet.

      • Richter_DL

        Tea is good.

      • Richter_DL

        He’s copypasting. He’s a cheap troll. Not even hand-crafted, lovingly prepared bile and vitriol, his trolling comes canned. :(

      • Alix

        He’s insisting to me, repeatedly, that he’s made no assumptions in any of his arguments. I am rolling my eyes so hard right now.

      • Alix

        Given the way he’s replying to people, I think he honestly thinks he’s winning. He also seems to think he gets to dictate how people reply to him, and whether or not they get to carry on a conversation past the point he wants them to.

  • Lizzie

    Even THIS is copied and pasted. Do you ever type anything yourself or do you solely piggyback on the typing of others?

    • Jennifer Starr

      Never a new thought, never a new idea.

    • Joseph O Polanco

      Btw, are you done considering the irrefutable evidence I’ve shared for God’s existence? I don’t see any attempts to refute it.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        I’m still waiting for the irrefutable evidence.

      • Joseph O Polanco
      • Lizzie

        Is this the evidence? LOL.

      • Alix

        1. You assume the universe at one point did not exist.

        2. You assume it required deliberate creation, and did not arise out of an unknown mechanism.

        3. You assume that it was created by your god, and not, say, my goddess.

        4. You assert that your god was uncreated, when the same logic that you use to insist the universe was created applies just as well to your god.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        Let’s see.

        (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

        Inductive generalization that presupposes the A-theory of time, which is false. Learn about special relativity.

        (2) The space-time universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago.

        Actually it was 13.8, and the universe did not begin to exist in the ontological sense, there is just a finite amount of time in the past.

        (3) Therefore, the space-time universe has a cause.

        Unproven assumption. Causes always precede their effects, so no cause can cause time. There is no such thing as true simultaneous causality.

        (4) The cause of the universe is a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being.

        Erroneous since no cause has been established. A timeless mind is by definition, non-functional and therefore illogical.

        (5) A transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being is the definition of God.

        Which is illogical, and impossible.

        (6) Therefore, God caused the universe to exist 13.70 billion years ago.

        Since premises 1-5 are false the conclusion does not follow.

        See, told ya, this argument was fallacious. On top of all this, you first have to prove that there ever was once a state of affairs in which nothing existed. And if you could, you couldn’t appeal to logic, because that presupposes logic existed. If logic existed, then you must concede that it is impossible for “nothing” to exist.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Is that really what you find compelling? I ask that in all seriousness. When you were first deciding to plunge into this incredibly misogynistic mindset, into this patently false religion, is this what really swayed you? Is this what you saw and went “Yeah, that’s totally credible!”

        What a pity such a promising young mind never got taught how to critically evaluate arguments. You have a lot of contortions you use that allow you to accept shoddy arguments, but you don’t actually have any skill in dealing with actual refutations of those arguments.

  • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

    Can you deny that god said this:

    Ephesians 6:5
    “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear.”

    1 Peter 2:18
    “Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”

    Titus 2:9
    “Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,”

    You’ve said before these are valid verses still binding today. So either you’re a hypocrite or you’re major hypocrite. Which one is it?

    • Joseph O Polanco

      I’ve said it’s applicable to employees, yes.

      If you, however, think it’s a bad idea to follow your boss’ directions …

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        Slaves are not employees, that’s why they’re called slaves.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        lol

        There are plenty of wage slaves the world over who would vociferously disagree.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        And what if your boss is Adolph Hitler?

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Let your conscience be your guide. (Acts 5:29)

        Interestingly enough: http://bit.ly/1f1tCa7

      • Alix

        Ah, we agree! One’s conscience ought to be one’s guide. No need for someone else’s moral code.

        So, tell me, if an individual’s conscience should be their guide, why do you think you get to impose the strictures of your conscience on everyone else’s?

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        It’s always hilarious when someone tries to put forth an argument that actually destroys his assertions.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        Oh so now you advocate subjective morality by letting our conscience be our moral guides?

        And, slaves are not paid, what you’re referring to is industrial servitude, which is a modern iteration of slavery, but it isn’t technically slavery.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        lol

        That’s why God gave us a conscience and principles to properly calibrate it.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        My conscience says gay marriage is fine, and stoning gays and kids to death is wrong. You can’t refute that because you believe god gave me that conscience and to use it as my guide.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        As you’ve correctly surmised, the overwhelming majority of people are born with a conscience that reacts when they do something wrong.

        The issue, however, is that, like any precision instrument, our conscience needs to be properly calibrated otherwise, like a compass disoriented by a magnet, it will leave us stranded. A clear example of this can be seen with child soldiers. These are more violent and vicious than their older counterparts.

        “More than 300,000 children—some as young as 7—are fighting as soldiers in 41 countries around the world,” said an Associated Press dispatch. Most are between the ages of 15 and 18. “Besides being used as front-line fighters, children are used to detect land mines and also as spies, porters and sex slaves, according to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers.” Drugs are often administered to make children fearless. Those who refuse drugs are killed, said a 14-year-old rebel soldier in Sierra Leone. Regarding his fighting in 1999 when he was 15, a North African youth reported: “They put all the 15- and 16-year-olds in the front line while the army retreated. I was with 40 other kids. I was fighting for 24 hours. When I saw that only three of my friends were alive, I ran back.” The Coalition’s report stated that governments recruit children because of “their very qualities as children—they can be cheap, expendable and easier to condition into fearless killing and unthinking obedience.”

        And so we arrive at the crux of our discussion. As we’ve seen whether or not a person has a conscience isn’t really the issue. It’s whether or not a person has a reliable conscience and whether or not he/she obeys it.

        This dilemma calls to mind an old Cherokee legend. It goes something like this:

        “An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. “A fight is going on inside me,” he said to the boy.

        “It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.” He continued, “The other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you – and inside every other person, too.”

        The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, “Which wolf will win?”

        The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.””

        With that in mind, consider what another equally wise and ancient passage tells us.

        “This is what Jehovah has said [] “I, Jehovah, am your God [Creator], the One teaching you to benefit [yourself], the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments. Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.” – Isaiah 48:17,18 (Brackets mine.)

        As any loving parent would, our Creator, Jehovah God, is keenly interested in our well-being and, to that end, instructs us on how to maintain and properly use the conscience he created us with.

        To close, here’s a remarkable demonstration of this instruction at work as recorded in a leading international journal:

        “In Liberia, Alex served as an altar boy in the Catholic Church. But at the age of 13, he joined a warring faction and became a notorious child soldier. To make himself brave in battle, he turned to witchcraft. Alex saw many of his companions killed, but he survived. In 1997 he met Jehovah’s Witnesses and found that they did not look down on him. Rather, they helped him to learn what the Bible says about violence. Alex left the army. As his faith began to grow, he followed the Bible command: “Let him turn away from what is bad and do what is good; let him seek peace and pursue it.”—1 Peter 3:11.

        Meanwhile, a former child soldier named Samson came through the town where Alex now lived. He had been a choirboy but in 1993 became a soldier and got involved in drug abuse, spiritism, and immorality. In 1997 he was demobilized. Samson was heading for Monrovia to join a special security force when a friend persuaded him to study the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and as a result, he developed a Bible-based faith. This gave him the courage to abandon his warlike ways. Both Alex and Samson now live peaceful and moral lives. Could anything but Bible-based faith make changes in lives that had been so brutalized?” – http://bit.ly/18WopZ0

        Is it apparent to you now why we all need to read and apply what the Bible teaches? :)

      • Alix

        1. Why the Bible? Why not the Koran, or some other moral code?

        2. Experience itself is a great calibrator. So is culture. Neither requires a written moral guideline.

        3. But “what the Bible teaches” is intensely debatable. Hence all the various Christian sects.

        4. Do you ever not copy/paste?

      • Lizzie

        Alix you forgot to close it with some latin!

      • Alix

        LOL. I figure there’s enough pretension floating around already, though hot damn am I tempted to apply some choice phases. (I had an … interesting Latin teacher.)

      • Lizzie

        I just realized you can tell a lot about a person by the ratio of comments to up votes.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Looks like you’re done scrutinizing the irrefutable case I presented for God’s necessary existence.

        That being the case, do you yield or are you going to attempt to present some kind of refutation?

      • Lizzie

        Strawman

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        ….if he only had a brain.

      • marshmallow

        Strawman.You have just forfeited the argument.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Yay! We won! Oh wait we won a long time ago.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        If god is keenly interested in our well being why does he permit slavery?

      • Joseph O Polanco

        For the same reason it is necessary for him to temporarily permit all manner of suffering: http://bit.ly/11EyvgO

      • Alix

        Not good enough. In the Bible, God not only permits slavery, but demands it, along with genocide, rape, murder, and other such things. Including, by the way, abortion.

        Permitting it means his hands are tied, and he is thus either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent. Demanding it makes him immoral.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        I see you’ve had plenty of time to carefully analyze the irrefutable case I presented for God’s necessary existence.

        Do you, then, yield or are you going to attempt to refute it in its entirety?

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        I already used the ontological argument to disprove your god. In case you forgot:

        1.God is the greatest conceivable being.

        2. I can conceive of a greater being than Jehovah.

        3. Therefore, Jehovah is not God.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        And then you failed to conceive of a being greater than Jehovah.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        Sorry dude. Then you undermine the whole concept of a greatest conceivable anything. You wouldn’t want to do that would you?

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Well I could agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong.

      • Alix

        I’ve responded to you elsewhere. I have repeated myself several times already.

        Also, you are ignoring the actual comment to which you are replying, trying to shift the conversation elsewhere and dodge the point. Nice try.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        You’re sure repeating yourself a lot with this “yield” nonsense. Are you sensing that you’re about done here? Maybe in time you’ll realize you got shot down in flames a long time ago.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        I take it that by now you’ve had an opportunity to carefully scrutinize the irrefutable case I presented for God’s necessary existence.

        Do you, therefore, yield or are you going to attempt to a refutation?

      • Alix

        1. Your case is hardly irrefutable.

        2. You still haven’t answered how assuming a creator proves your god was the creator.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Then where’s your comprehensive refutation?

        I’m anxious to put it under the microscope.

      • Alix

        1. As per your own words, no one has to bother refuting something for which no evidence has been provided. You’ve provided no evidence, therefore you deserve no refutation.

        2. Which God created the universe, and where’s your proof?

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Burden of proof lies with you. You have not provided a compelling argument or demonstrated any evidence for your claims. Instead, you have repeatedly tried to force your burden of proof dishonestly onto others. You have given us not a single reason to take your word for anything, but you have also demonstrated a galactically-ignorant misunderstanding of a variety of other topics, which makes your assertions doubly dubious.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        Irrefutable? Ha ha. Every point you make about it is refutable.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Then refute it!

        After all, “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

        Time to put up or …

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        I did read your messages.

      • Jennifer Starr

        He’s refuted it several times. I’ve read the refutations. Why haven’t you?

      • Alix

        Because he can’t refute the refutations. He has no rebuttals except to try desperately to insist no one’s refuted him.

        Time for him to take his own advice…

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Links?

      • Jennifer Starr

        I’m assuming that you are able to read replies to your own posts..

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

        Inductive generalization that presupposes the A-theory of time, which is false. Learn about special relativity.

        (2) The space-time universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago.

        Actually it was 13.8, and the universe did not begin to exist in the ontological sense, there is just a finite amount of time in the past.

        (3) Therefore, the space-time universe has a cause.

        Unproven assumption. Causes always precede their effects, so no cause can cause time. There is no such thing as true simultaneous causality.

        (4) The cause of the universe is a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being.

        Erroneous since no cause has been established. A timeless mind is by definition, non-functional and therefore illogical.

        (5) A transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being is the definition of God.

        Which is illogical, and impossible.

        (6) Therefore, God caused the universe to exist 13.70 billion years ago.

        Since premises 1-5 are false the conclusion does not follow.

        See, told ya, this argument was fallacious. On top of all this, you first have to prove that there ever was once a state of affairs in which nothing existed. And if you could, you couldn’t appeal to logic, because that presupposes logic existed. If logic existed, then you must concede that it is impossible for “nothing” to exist.

      • Lizzie

        DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNAH

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Provide one, and we’ll let you know.

        And we don’t have to yield. You already lost. Brutally. You can insist otherwise all you want, but all that’ll do is salve your ego–which looks like it’s the size of New Jersey.

      • fiona64

        And now he’s plagiarizing the Watchtower: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2000000

      • J. Polanco

        Click on the bit.ly link I included at the end and watch what happens.

        You really need to stop crying wolf …

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        You really need to stop stealing other people’s work and claiming it as your own.

      • fiona64

        You mean the one that you added on edit? Because there was no link when I posted.

        You’re intellectually dishonest, Joey.

        What a jerk.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Yeah, because a wall of cut and pasted text takes the place of a reasoned response.

        Oh wait, it doesn’t… except to you.

      • Alix

        principles to properly calibrate it

        Huh. Interesting. One of those principles was something about beams and motes. Another had something to do with judging, and the not doing of it. A third was something repeated quite a lot, about speaking arrogantly and being religiously demonstrative in public.

        Something sure doesn’t seem properly calibrated, here…

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        And if you prove to have either no conscience or a very poorly-calibrated one, what are we to think of the validity of your religion?

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Which is why referring to the labor system employed in ancient Israel as slavery is duplicitous and mendacious. (Leviticus 25:49)

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        Absurd. Leviticus says Israelites cannot be slaves for life, but non-Israelites can. Just go back two verses

        Leviticus 25:44-46

        44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        How does that change the fact that “If he becomes rich, then he may redeem himself”? (Leviticus 25:49)

        It also raises the important question, how would he/she be able to become rich in the first place if he wasn’t earning any income?

        Hmmmmm…..

        Slavery you say?

      • fiona64

        Oh, snap! Biblical literalists always hate it when you really *do* put their cherry-picked verses into context …

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        That is a false comparison. As bad as some jobs are, they are not slavery. You should know better than to go there. You’re only doing it to make slavery sound not-so-bad, which is in fact one of the false assertions your other arguments hinge upon. Slavery is a human rights violation no matter when and where it occurred. It would be dishonest and an egregious demonstration of ignorance to say otherwise. I’m going to recommend you learn more about ancient slavery practices before you put your foot any further down your own mouth.

      • Alix

        I, for one, do think it’s a bad idea for bosses to literally own their employees, yes. I also do indeed think it is immoral to demand unthinking, unquestioning obedience of any boss’ whims.

        You don’t?

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Of course! If any boss gives their wage slave an immoral command he/she should not obey it.

      • Alix

        So, then, those Bible verses don’t apply anymore. I mean, they say a slave is to submit unquestioningly, and you are saying by “slave” they mean “employee,” so…

        I agree with your statement, by the way. No one should obey an immoral order from their boss. That’s a sign of empathy, justice, and other such things in action, though, and does fly in the face of those Bible verses. You’re creating an exception not actually present there, from your own sense of right and wrong.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Looks like you’re done scrutinizing the irrefutable case I presented for God’s necessary existence.

        That being the case, do you yield or are you going to attempt to present some kind of refutation?

      • Alix

        1. I posted my comments to you already. You have yet to respond with anything substantive.

        2. Even if we allow your assumption that the universe was created, it does not follow that the god that created it was yours. Therefore, your “irrefutable proof” that your god created the universe falls apart.

        3. So it’s all about winning, to you? Not about, oh, honest inquiry and the truth? That explains a lot.

      • Jennifer Starr

        I don’t actually think you know how to respond to a refutation, or that you even understand much of what you’re copying and pasting.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Well, when you actually present one we’ll find out if that’s true or not.

      • Lizzie

        And the others who have present things? You ignore them or yell strawman.

      • Jennifer Starr

        I don’t think you understand your own argument. Mainly because it isn’t even yours.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        He doesn’t understand most of the terms and arguments he’s using, or he’d know their limitations and why they don’t work.

      • Alix

        He’s not actually thinking things through, or possibly even reading his own comments, which is why y’all have been talking him in circles and getting him to contradict his own assertions for a while now.

        He seems to think this constitutes “winning.”

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Winning like Charlie Sheen…

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        So it’s OK for employees to disobey their bosses, but it’s also OK for slaves to submit to their masters at all costs? How is that logical?

        Ephesians 6:5
        “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear.”

        1 Peter 2:18
        “Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”

        Titus 2:9
        “Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,”

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        But slaves had to obey anyway. That’s what slavery was. Your lack of understanding does not actually constitute reality or change it.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        If you really think that Biblical slavery was just a form of employment, then your understanding of everything else in the Bible just got suspect.

        No, you historical illiterate, it was *not* just employment. It was slavery. Slave owners raped their female slaves and perpetually tried to find ways to feed, clothe, and care for their slaves of all genders as little as possible to keep them alive. They beat their slaves so much that even the Bible had to set up rules for how hard to beat one. They owned them just like slave owners today own their slaves, and treated them the same. That’s why nobody said “Yay! I’ll go apply for slavery down at the big house!” Slavery has always been bad. You’re just buying into indoctrination that *LIES* about it to make it seem not so bad. That’s how you feel about slavery? That it’s just employment, not so bad, just a walk in the park? Does it really just baffle you so much that people even today don’t want to be slaves? Only a monster would even go there–you know, like Christians do.

  • Lizzie

    How nice it must be to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being crazy.

    • fiona64

      Too bad for him that gaslighting doesn’t work very well in this crowd …

  • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

    You’ll do anything to avoid admitting that your entire moral system is illogical won’t you? You just flat out contradicted yourself here.

    Employee disobedience good, slave disobedience bad. I think that’s a rational surmise of your espoused ethics.

  • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

    In case you need to be reminded, you said:

    “I’ve said it’s [god's commands for slaves to obey their masters] applicable to employees, yes.”

    Then you said…

    “Of course! If any boss gives their wage slave an immoral command he/she should not obey it.”

    • Joseph O Polanco

      And I included a reference, to wit, Acts 5:29. Did you study it?

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        That reference only makes it worse for your case because you were the one advocating employee disobedience. And yet on top of that you also fail to acknowledge when the bible says slave – it actually means slave. Non-Jews could be forced into slavery for life.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Really? Do tell, what system of slavery enables slaves to accumulate wealth and become rich? (Leviticus 25:49)

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        Strawman. Those were not slaves they were talking about. You are so desperate to avoid the fact that the bible allows harsh, lifelong human slavery aren’t you? Some foreigners were slaves, some weren’t. The ones that were slaves could be treated harsh and kept for life.

        Thom Stark explains the differences between Hebrew slaves and foreign slaves owned by Israelites in “Is God A Moral Compromiser?”:

        In Exodus 21, it is clear that only Hebrew slaves are in view (because a master is not permitted to sell such a slave to foreigners). This is consonant with what we already know. Hebrew slaves were not to be treated harshly, because all Hebrews were Yahweh’s special possession. But the prohibition of harsh treatment of slaves emphatically did not apply to foreign slaves. (p. 170)

        And on Leviticus 25 he further expounds on the differences of Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves:

        In contrast to Israelite indentured slaves, the foreign slaves “you may treat as slaves.” [Lev 25:46] What does that mean? What it means is clear from the subsequent contrast. “But as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.” Thus, what this means is that Israelites are permitted to rule over their foreign slaves “with harshness.” Since Exodus 21 gives masters tacit permission to beat Hebrew slaves, so long as they don’t instantly kill them or permanently disfigure them, that must be the definition of what it means not to treat Israelites with harshness. Thus, we can infer that foreign slaves, as property, were subject to beatings without the protection of the law for Hebrew slaves. In short, they could be disfigured or killed, if the master saw fit. (pp. 190-191)

        He also notes some of the privileges the Israelites had over foreigners:

        ….all sorts of special exemptions were given to Israelites that didn’t apply to foreigners. Israelites were to be given no-interest loans, but foreigners were to be charged interest. Israelites were to have their debts forgiven on jubilee (once every 50 years), but the debts of foreigners were not to be forgiven. (p. 195)

      • J. Polanco

        Again, what system of slavery enables slaves to accumulate wealth and become rich? (Leviticus 25:49)

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        LOL, Now you’re just embarrassing yourself. It’s not going to help convert people into your cult.

      • J. Polanco

        I’ve been called worse by better.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        I’m sure you’ve been called worse by worse too.

      • J. Polanco

        Indeed. Present company included.

      • fiona64

        It’s become abundantly clear that your purpose here is to proselytize — which is also a violation of Libby Anne’s comment policy.

      • fiona64

        Hubris is an ugly, ugly quality.

      • Jennifer Starr

        And Joseph Polanco is filled to the brim with it.

      • fiona64

        How are you doing with obeying all of those Levitical laws you’re so fond of citing?

        Or is this just another case of “do as I say, not as I do” authoritarianism on your part?

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Are you aware that that verse actually contradicts your position, rather than supports it?

      • J. Polanco

        How so?

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        If we must obey god rather than human beings as Acts 5:29 says, and god says “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear,” then slaves are to obey their masters, “not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”

        Is that what you were trying to say while you accidentally contradicted yourself?

      • J. Polanco

        See? I knew all your blustering was feigned and you understood perfectly from the outset what I communicated.

  • Alix

    Oh, plenty of disparity exists. Your arguments really aren’t very logical or consistent, and you keep shooting your own arguments down, anyway.

    Also, newsflash: people who disagree with you are not automatically crazy, and being crazy does not mean a person is incapable of rational thought. Knock off the ableism.

    While we’re at it, the people disagreeing with you are also not necessarily:
    -atheists
    -Satanists
    -non-Christian
    -sociopathic

  • Alix

    Stop with the ableist comments.

    You clearly have nothing but insults to provide, so why on earth should we take you seriously?

  • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

    I really think you should be more mindful of the voices coming from the Watch Tower. They’re clearly diminishing your ability to be logically consistent.

    • Joseph O Polanco

      CSL :’D :’D

      Right, because you say so, CSL

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        The end is near Joseph. You know how I can tell?

        Because I got you to admit morality is subjective. It must mean the end is near!!

        Joseph: “Let your conscience be your guide. (Acts 5:29)”

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Right, and Acts 5:29 refutes your folderol.

        Oooops …

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        So you’re saying we should allow human slavery and the execution of children who curse their parents?

      • Joseph O Polanco

        What system of slavery enables slaves to accumulate wealth and become rich? (Leviticus 25:49)

      • Alix

        ……woooow. You have no understanding of history or anthropology, do you.

        Hint: go look up the Roman Empire and its slavery system, for just one example.

      • Alix

        Well, seeing as the bible was written by men…

      • J. Polanco

        But authored by God. Also part of the undisputable case I presented for God’s necessary existence which you’re yet to even attempt to refute: http://bit.ly/1b0kHnG

      • Lizzie

        It was painful to read that much pseudo-itellectualism.

      • Alix

        Prove the Bible was authored by God. Do it without reference to the Bible.

      • J. Polanco

        That’s like asking an evolutionist to prove evolution without using evidence for evolution.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        If you can’t prove the Bible was written by a god without using that same Bible, then you can’t prove it. That’s called circular reasoning, Joseph. Evolution can be demonstrated any number of ways without referring directly to the actual theory of evolution; it is demonstrated through facts from fields as diverse as embryology and genetics. You’re making a false comparison here by saying that the Bible is like the entire field of biology or something. It isn’t. There are no facts that support the Bible outside of the Bible itself. None. You cannot do it. So instead of conceding that it can’t be done, your solution is to make it sound like the request is unreasonable. That doesn’t work with educated people. It’s not an unreasonable request. If the whole universe supports the truth you think is in the Bible, then surely you can find something in this universe that supports the idea that this book was divinely authored.

        You can insist all you want that it’s not a reasonable request, but it is not unreasonable. It’s perfectly reasonable. You just can’t do it, that’s all.

      • J. Polanco

        Let me be more explicit, then. The Bible contains detailed information that’s been shown cannot possibly be of human origin: http://bit.ly/14Ckccl

        This evidence is indisputable.

        This is evidence of God.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        I realize you’ve been banned already, but I just saw this and had to laugh. No, it is not “indisputable.” It’s certainly not information that Bronze-Age goat herders couldn’t have figured out. Is that really what you think is evidence? None of that is anything like empirical evidence for creationism or of the supernatural. I guess if someone is totally incapable of critically evaluating information, it might be, but ignorance doesn’t constitute valid evidence. There’s a whole argument fallacy named after that, you know.

      • fiona64

        Once again, you are using circular reasoning. Surely a man of your obvious erudition knows better than that …

      • J. Polanco

        Argumentum assertio. “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. Sorry, try again.

      • fiona64

        The evidence is obvious to anyone reading your posts. You are using circular reasoning. Knock it the hell off.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        And you can prove it was… how?

  • Jennifer Starr

    The Thinker actually makes much more sense than you. He’s actually able to make an intelligent argument with his own words instead of copying and pasting the ideas of others. And he doesn’t need to puff himself up with the use of pretentious Latin phrases. Let that be an example.

    • Joseph O Polanco

      Which reminds me. You too have had a lot of time to try and pick apart the irrefutable case I presented for God’s necessary existence.

      Do you then yield?

      • marshmallow

        Another strawman.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Once you stop basing it on the strawman idea that anyone has ever asserted that the universe came from nothing (no one believes that), then perhaps I will.

      • Alix

        People have pointed out repeatedly that his arguments rest on several assumptions and make several logical leaps, not the least of which is: even if there is a creator, who says it was his god?

        He’s refusing to deal with the rebuttals and is hoping to browbeat us into conceding through repetition and, I guess, the might of his wall-o-texting.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Where’s yours? Link?

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker
      • Joseph O Polanco

        You should at least try to stop being so gullible: http://bit.ly/qWK8dm

      • Lizzie

        how do you say “omFg the irony. The irony it’s hurting me!”, but in latin?

      • fiona64

        Deus meus! In ironia est doleret!

        Glad to be of assistance.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        Lol. False prophecies were taken out of context? Risible!!!

      • Alix

        Someone is trying desperately to cover his ass. Always an excuse for why he’s always perfectly right despite, y’know, facts.

      • Lizzie

        I love that you’re the one being gullible. I can’t stop laughing about it.

      • Alix

        Me neither. Also, folks without evidence need to shut up and don’t require refutation, yet…

      • J. Polanco

        Was that another attempt at a refutation of the unassailable case I presented for God’s necessary existence?

      • Lizzie

        No. It was me talking to someone who wasn’t you.

      • J. Polanco

        So, yield, right?

      • Lizzie

        Does that mean you’re leaving?

      • Guest

        I can’t. It’s hurting me to read such pseudo-intellectual garbage. Sorry.

        Maybe next time you’re trying to start a debate (which is don’t think you’re doing.), be civil. And be willing to listen to what other people say. Maybe copy and paste in smaller chunks, since that’s all you seem to do. I have no incentive to engage with you, as I’ve seen the way you treat people who do engage, and it’s not nice. (see above 6 ways to comment like you)

      • J. Polanco

        How can you write such putrid filth without taking a shower afterwards?

      • Lizzie

        How can you be so dramatic without fainting?

      • http://patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism Libby Anne

        Okay Joe, I’m only just now going through all of your comments that others have flagged for comment violations, and I’m deleting some of the most egregious ones, but this one I’ll leave so that I can leave a comment on it for you. This is a BLATANT violation of my comment policy. Go read my comment policy. Now. You can find it at the top of the page right under my blog header. Now follow it. If you continue to violate it, I will ban you.

      • J. Polanco

        My humblest apologies. It was tongue-in-cheek but I can see how it could be misinterpreted.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Yield? To what? You’ve lost, man. You lost days ago. You’re the only one who doesn’t realize it.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Once you provide an unassailable case, we’ll take a look at it. You haven’t yet, so we wouldn’t know. You’re one of those fake-rational types of Christian who thinks he’s got this huge wonderful argument for a god’s existence that takes the place of actual evidence of that god’s existence. It doesn’t. There are things that would demonstrate the existence of your god. You have not demonstrated a single one of those yet. All you have are fancy arguments–which have all been shot down completely. But you still think they’re valid. That’s your problem, not ours.

      • J. Polanco

        The arguments you parrot are all sophistic argumentum contextomy fallacies.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        So you are telling me that the JW cult/church that you belong to has never made an end of world prophecy? Ever?

      • J. Polanco

        I don’t belong to a cult. Try again.

      • Lizzie

        Prove it.

      • Alix

        *snicker*

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Aww, I bet you think that made you look smart.

      • fiona64

        Non, tibi gratias ago. Turrem in exemplum nolo.

      • Alix

        Better. I will repost.

        You make two assumptions in your arguments that you provide no evidence for:

        1. That the universe ever did not exist.

        2. That if the universe did not exist, it could not have arisen by some as-yet-unknown natural mechanism. You assume that because science has not yet discovered such a mechanism, none exists.

        You also fail to realize that your explanation of why the universe was created applies equally well to god; you simply assert that the chain of creation must end somewhere and therefore assert it must end with god.

        Nevertheless, as a theist myself, I am prepared to allow you to assert that the universe was created. That leads us to your major leap in logic:

        - You assert without evidence that if the universe was created, it must have been created by your god. Despite people repeatedly asking, you have yet to provide any reason why the creator deity in question could not have been Allah, Brahma, Anu, Ptah, the Star Goddess, or countless other deities.

      • J. Polanco

        1/2. Refuted here: http://bit.ly/1bx02Hh and http://bit.ly/1dwPpCx

        3. Refuted here: http://bit.ly/1b0kHnG (pars. 2 & 3)

      • Lizzie
      • Jennifer Starr

        He doesn’t even understand it enough to make an argument in his own words.

      • Lizzie

        Of course he doesn’t. It’s like he’s a pseudo-psuedo-intellectual.

      • J. Polanco

        How exactly does someone steal from themselves? LOL

      • Lizzie

        I’d imagine the same way you’d steal from William Lane Craig.

      • J. Polanco

        i. Prove I didn’t compose those experienceproject.com essays.

        ii. It’s not stealing if you give credit, hence, all the bit.ly links.

      • fiona64

        You did not write those papers; you stole them from other people.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Oh, are you William Lane Craig? You’ve sure changed a lot.

      • Alix

        I read all those posts quite carefully. My comments still stand. The creation of the universe – and whether or not it even was created – is still being debated; as such, yes, you are assuming things when you assume a) that it came from nothing and b) that it could not have arisen spontaneously. Like I said, I am willing to concede a creator.

        I refuted your prophecy argument elsewhere. For one thing, by your standards, the prophets of many other gods were also perfectly accurate; the Oracle at Delphi was famous in the ancient world for her accuracy. For another, no specific prophecy in the Bible (i.e. one that does not use imagery or metaphor, but refers to concrete, knowable events) can be conclusively dated to before the event it purports to prophesy. Thus, no Biblical prophecy is proof of anything about the existence of the Biblical god.

        Try arguing without recourse to the bible next time – otherwise, you are arguing in circles. “The god of the Bible exists because the Bible says he exists” is not a legitimate proof of the Biblical god’s existence; by that standard, Allah exists because the Koran says he does, and we have more proof of the existence of Zeus than we have for either of them.

      • J. Polanco

        i. Ever read Hawking’s “The Grand Design” and Krauss’ ”A Universe From Nothing“? The debate has long been settled.

        ii. Refuted here: http://bit.ly/14tiTgk and http://bit.ly/13EQKjr.

        iii. Only if Dawkins quoting Darwin is just as circular.

      • Alix

        LOL no. Your “proofs” are laughable and your logic fallacious. You have still not actually refuted any of the points any of us have made, nor have you actually provided any evidence for your assertions.

        Thanks for playing.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        How long do the mods put up with that sort of bullshit around here?

      • Alix

        No idea. I’m pretty sure bad logic isn’t enough to get someone banned, though.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        She’s a lot more understanding than I would be. This whole thread has been:

        JOSEPH: FALSE ASSERTIONS, INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY, AND MANIPULATIVE MANGLING OF LANGUAGE TO MAKE A BAD ARGUMENT HE THINKS IS AWESOME.

        US: REFUTATION AND DEMANDS FOR EVIDENCE.

        JOSEPH: FAKE, POORLY-TRANSLATED LATIN PHRASE THAT DOESN’T MEAN WHAT HE THINKS IT MEANS. BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTED. POSSIBLE FALLACY NAME HE READ ONCE THAT SOUNDED COOL.

        US: *LAUGHTER*

        JOSEPH: CUT AND PASTE BS THAT DOESN’T PROVE WHAT HE THINKS IT DOES. BLINDING IRONY.

        US: EVISCERATING REFUTATION.

        JOSEPH: FALSE CLAIM THAT CAN BE EASILY OBJECTIVELY REFUTED. POSSIBLE REPEATED LINK HE KEEPS USING LIKE HE THINKS IT HELPS. MORE FAKE LATIN TERMS HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND.

        US: OBJECTIVE REFUTATION OF CLAIM.

        JOSEPH: MORE FAKE LATIN, POSSIBLE FALLACY NAME LAID DOWN LIKE AN UNO CARD LIKE IT ENDS THE WHOLE ARGUMENT. (REFUTATION obviously ignored and forgotten about till the next time he makes the exact same assertion.)

        US: *LAUGHTER*

        JOSEPH: “SO I WIN, RIGHT? YAY! I WIN! YOU STOPPED ARGUING!”

        US: *MORE LAUGHTER* EVISCERATING AND WITHERING SCORN.

        JOSEPH: LET’S START ALL OVER AGAIN. ABORTION IS MURDER!

        My goodness, can you even imagine having to spend any real-life time around someone this tedious? He’s repeated this entire cycle like three times. He never learns. He’s still using the fake Latin even though we’ve been mocking him for misusing it for three days. I mean, think about it: he’s doing this BS around the *one crowd* that is 100% guaranteed to know it’s a total sham and can say with academic certainty that he is doing it all wrong. Just that alone makes me wonder about just what kind of mental illness we’re dealing with here.

      • Alix

        I highly doubt he’s mentally ill. It’s classic authoritarian thinking: it’s all about winning, and about asserting your own positions hard enough. Logic is nothing but a rhetorical tactic to them, not a rigorous thought process; it’s why he throws out fallacies and pseudo-intellectual “logic” and then whines when we point out it’s illogical.

        These people start from their conclusions, and anything that supports those conclusions must be right. Any proof we offer that their reasoning is wrong is seen by them as a rhetorical tactic of our own, not an actual refutation.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Or you could just stop back pedalling, put your nose to the grindstone and make an attempt at eking out some sort of tenable refutation.

        I won’t hold my breathe though …

      • Jennifer Starr

        No, until you correct that false assertion, your argument pretty much topples over. Not that it was much to begin with, and you don’t actually comprehend enough of what you’ve copied to actually make any intelligent defense of it.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        What false assertion are you referring to. Link?

      • Jennifer Starr

        No one believes that the universe came from nothing. Evolution does not state that. The Big Bang theory does not state that. That is a faulty assumption, a strawman.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Ever read Krauss’ ”A Universe From Nothing“ & Hawking’s The Grand Design”?

      • Lizzie

        maybe try holding your breath. Jennifer will come through. Have FAITH.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        I’m hoping you’ll come through for the both of you. Surely you won’t let me down, right?

      • Lizzie

        No, you’re hopeless. There’s no point debating with you. You copy and paste other peoples ideas. You use a thesaurus so we’ll all think you’re a super genius, and you use latin translators (poor ones) for the same purpose.

        People have refuted you and then you either copy and paste a ridiculous latin phrase or say “strawman. try again” That’s not a debate. This is a show for your ego.

        I have addressed you a number of times and asked questions that don’t get answered, so why bother answering yours?

      • Joseph O Polanco

        So, yield. Cool!

      • Lizzie

        No, not a yield. The same way if I refuse to run a race against a legless man, it’s not me losing, it’s me refusing to beat a poor, legless man. Only instead of a legless man, it’s an undereducated religious zealot.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Then where’s your refutation? Link?

        You practically begged me for the evidence, remember?

      • Lizzie

        Yeah, that was sarcasm. Everyone knows you don’t have irrefutable evidence.

      • J. Polanco

        Then where’s your refutation? Your claims are meaningless without it.

      • Lizzie

        When you provide something that is worth refuting that you say yourself, I’ll be glad to refute it.

        I’ve asked you SEVERAL questions re: JW that you skipped right over. How convenient for you!

      • J. Polanco

        If you refuse to engage what I’ve so kindly gifted you with why should I squander anymore of my precious time with your “questions”?

      • fiona64

        You mean, the plagiarism you committed of other people’s work?

      • Alix

        Other people have already refuted you. Lizzie doesn’t have to bother. Given your paltry attempts at “irrefutable proof,” I can’t blame em.

        Also, you are not arguing in good faith, ergo, no one needs give you the time of day. That anybody is doing so is a courtesy, not a right.

      • J. Polanco

        How is someone laughing at what they don’t understand constitute a refutation?

      • Alix

        LOL. We’re not laughing at things we don’t understand, we’re laughing at your pathetic attempts at rational arguments and intellectual buffoonery.

        You’ve been great entertainment, actually.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        You are dishonest, Joseph. The refutations have been given dozens of times. You might have missed them because your standard defense to being proven wrong is to spout off the name of a logical fallacy or a Latin term you don’t quite understand, or to demand “proof” of the thing you just got proof for. When you’re busy knee-jerking responses like that, I can see how you might miss something of substance.

      • J. Polanco

        Links?

      • Fred

        See this is the problem you run into when you constantly redefine words outside their accustomed usage.

        Nobody takes a liar seriously.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        Strawman try again.

      • J. Polanco

        Where’s her refutation then? Without it she has no choice but to yield especially since she implored me with all sincerity to present it to her.

      • Lizzie

        Again, this is not a formal debate. You don’t make the rules.

        And until you’re here speaking your own words that you thought of your big boy self, I don’t have to reply. If I wanted to reply, I’d go to the websites of the people you STOLE from, and talk to them.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        I can’t speak for her, but I’ve given you mine twice and I have yet to hear a response.

      • J. Polanco

        Where? Link?

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        For the third time,

        (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

        Inductive generalization that presupposes the A-theory of time, which is false. Learn about special relativity.

        (2) The space-time universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago.

        Actually it was 13.8, and the universe did not begin to exist in the ontological sense, there is just a finite amount of time in the past of our universe.

        (3) Therefore, the space-time universe has a cause.

        Unproven assumption. Causes always precede their effects, so no cause can cause time. There is no such thing as true simultaneous causality.

        (4) The cause of the universe is a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being.

        Erroneous since no cause has been established. A timeless mind is by definition, non-functional and therefore illogical.

        (5) A transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being is the definition of God.

        Which is illogical, and impossible.

        (6) Therefore, God caused the universe to exist 13.70 billion years ago.

        Since premises 1-5 are false the conclusion does not follow.

        See, told ya, this argument was fallacious. On top of all this, you first have to prove that there ever was once a state of affairs in which nothing existed. And if you could, you couldn’t appeal to logic, because that presupposes logic existed. If logic existed, then you must concede that it is impossible for “nothing” to exist.

      • J. Polanco

        Third? What happened to the other two? Did you write them in invisible ink?

        i. Argumentum assertio. Try again.

        ii. The premise that the universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find this statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today.

        The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, proves that any universe, which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than one ** must ** have a ** finite beginning **. I’m not making this up. Read the paper in full or watch Vilenkin himself invalidate and impugn beginningless universe models like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution and Static Seed/Emergent Universe on youtube.

        As such, Vilenkin had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning ***. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176) (Emphasis mine.)

        As Physicist and Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell put it, “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

        As such, your fervent belief that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe. It’s just more atheistic folderol and wishful thinking.

        This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing as I’ve already shared. I’ve also explained that this first uncaused efficient cause must also, by necessity, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good. As it turns out, such is the very definition of God.

        iii. This conclusion follows only if we equate time with mathematical measures of time. This reductionistic view is clearly wrong for a sequence of mental events alone is sufficient to generate relations of earlier and later, wholly in the absence of any physical events. So there could be a time at which God created the initial cosmological singularity, even if that moment is not in physical time.

        iv. What evidence do you have, then, that the universe poofed into existence from no state of affairs, no potentialities, no properties, no relations, in other words from not anything.

        v. Argumentum assertio. Prove it.

        vi. Argumentum assertio. You failed to present evidence for your allegations against 1, 4, 5, your attempt at refuting 2 has no basis in any respected mainstream cosmological theories and your attempt at refuting 3 is purely reductionist and parochial.

        I’m looking forward to your revised arguments though.

      • Alix

        1. Try responding to er actual rebuttals and not just copy-pasting what you’ve already asserted elsewhere.

        2. Everyone else here has seen those rebuttals, except for you. Given how screwy Disqus gets with long threads, I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but they were indeed written. Either you aren’t getting notification of the comments, or you are ignoring many of the comments you do receive.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        LOL. You obviously don’t know much about science do you? Wait, all of your science education must have happened on Reasonable Faith, that explains it.

        1. Argument assertio? Try this link: http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mysterious_flow.asp

        2. You obvious don’t understand the nature of time and physics. Read that link above and you’ll know that all of your chest pounding is nothing but empty hot air. The universe is eternal and has a beginning, but not an ontological beginning.

        3. More plagiarization from William Lane Craig. Don’t you ever get tired of it? Time is a physical thing, called spacetime. It’s the most fundamental thing we know about space and reality. If a “sequence of mental events alone is sufficient to generate relations of earlier and later, wholly in the absence of any physical events,” this means that if god were to count from one to five, “1,2,3,4,5” there would always be a moment prior to him counting and a moment after him counting. This means that in order to think, you cannot logically escape the dimension of time, even in the absence of physical matter. But, this puts a heavy burden of proof on the theist who asserts that god is a thinking mind and a timeless mind. It would also seem that the absence of time and of possessing temporal qualities prevents any ability to think along with the ability to execute one’s will, (all require time)and it certainly prevents god from being able to impregnating an underage Palestinian virgin, so that god could have her give birth to himself.

        4. Refer to the link in no. 1. The universe doesn’t need to be “poofed into existence from no state of affairs, no potentialities, no properties, no relations,” in the ontological sense, the past, present and future are all equally real. Therefore, the universe is eternal. No deity required. Disprove that.

        5. How does a timeless god think? Thinking requires time, as your poster boy William Lane Craig said. And metaphysical time is a cop out. It basically says time exists but its not really time, It’s “finite time” as Craig calls it. It’s sophistry. Prove it exists.

        6. It seems that the biggest assertions made are from you. You’ve got evidence now. In number 2, my point is supported by the overwhelming majority of physicists, it’s not my fault you don’t understand physics. And for number 3, show me a cause that is not temporal. In other words, show me how time itself can be caused.

      • Alix

        …Wow, thanks for the link. That’s a really cool article.

      • J. Polanco

        i. You forget that all mathmatical models are merely descrptive, not prescriptive.

        If time does not pass in reality, why does it appear to do so? What reason do we have to eye what our senses show us askance? Are you suggesting every single human being on the face of this earth, yourself included, is non compos mentis? And if we ought to discard as dementia the reality our senses portrays to us, how does this not make every single thought we’ve ever had completely otiose?

        ii. See i.

        iii. Again, you’re being reductive in your conflation of mathematical time with metaphysical time. Physical Time “is a mathematical method that defines a quantity of momentum from the relationship between the positive reality of mass and the negative reality of space.” Metaphysical Time, on the other hand “is the perception of time as a continuous flow that is without interval and is thus immeasurable. It is the comprehension of motion and therefore of time’s passage. Clocks do not measure time. “Time itself” is a metaphysical concept and as such cannot be identified by any physical measurement nor can it be altered in any way by a physical effect. Clocks function by monitoring the constant relationship between mass and space known as the conservation of momentum and angular momentum. Time does not move the world, but the motions of the world can be quite beautifully generalized into the metaphysical idea of time.”

        iv. See i.

        v. See iii.

        vi. See iii. Since the perception of time is mind-dependent your question is benighted and, therefore, vapid.

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        1. “You forget that all mathmatical models are merely descrptive, not prescriptive.”

        And that’s supposed to refute my argument how exactly? What I gave you was a description of the universe. The universe need not conform to how you think it should be.

        Do you realize that at one time every person thought the earth was flat, and was the center of the universe? And that before we discovered quantum physics, we thought everything was made of solid matter, and now we realize it’s almost all empty space? The problem is your worldview is based on Iron-age intuition. That’s why it fails. And the article addresses your concern about the passage of time.

        Physicist Paul Davies explains, “Nothing in known physics corresponds to the passage of time.” He adds, “Physicists prefer to think of time as laid out in its entirety—a timescape, analogous to a landscape—with all past and future events located there together. It is a notion sometimes referred to as blocktime.”

        “We do not really observe the passage of time,” Davies writes, “what we actually observe is that later states of the world differ from earlier states that we still remember. The fact that we remember the past, rather than the future, is an observation not of the passage of time bit of the asymmetry of time.”

        2. See 1.

        3. Laughable. Show me some empirical evidence that metaphysical time exists and is not just a cop out dreamed up by theologians. And furthermore, the hypothesized existence of metaphysical time does nothing to defeat the fact that space and time are commingled in an eternal spacetime 4D block, that needs no creator. God just lost his job. Sorry.

        4. See 1. Or learn some science.

        5. Oh right, all the science you’ve learned is from apologist websites that lie, and distort the facts and pick and choose from the science that backs up their theological views.

        6. Ha. If you can’t refute my argument, just admit it. Here are some links for you since you’re scientifically challenged.

        http://bcove.me/tf4wirf1

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks

      • J. Polanco

        i. Mathematical models do not dictate reality. It’s the other way around. So, if a mathematical model conflicts with reality, guess which one wins out?

        ii. Thus confirming the reality of metaphysical time; its perception, not the measure “of momentum from the relationship between the positive reality of mass and the negative reality of space”.

        iii. “We do not really observe the passage of time,” Davies writes, “what we actually observe is that later states of the world differ from earlier states that we still remember. The fact that we remember the past, rather than the future, is an observation not of the passage of time bit of the asymmetry of time.” That’s metaphysical time. See ii.

        iv. The premise that the universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find this statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today.

        The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, proves that any universe, which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than one ** must ** have a ** finite beginning **. I’m not making this up. Read the paper in full or watch Vilenkin himself invalidate and impugn beginningless universe models like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution and Static Seed/Emergent Universe on youtube.

        As such, Vilenkin had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning ***. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176) (Emphasis mine.)

        As Physicist and Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell put it, “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

        As such, your fervent belief that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe. It’s just more atheistic folderol and wishful thinking.

        This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing as I’ve already shared. I’ve also explained that this first uncaused efficient cause must also, by necessity, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good. As it turns out, such is the very definition of God.

        v. Argumentum ad lapidem. You’re kettle logic has done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the facts that support them. Try again.

        vi. I’ll pass on your pseudo-science if you don’t mind …

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        Are you unable to grasp new information? Seriously.

        1. Mathematical models describe reality. The question is, why should I accept your theologically based view of reality that requires the presentist view of time that almost all physicists reject?

        2. Makes no sense. And only shows that you know how to copy and paste and think it somehow helps your case. What metaphysical time? Time is physical. That’s what relativity and quantum mechanics show us. Did you even read the article I linked or watch the videos? Davies notes our conscious perception of physical time.

        3. See 2.

        4. You still don’t get it do you? It seems all you know how to do is copy and paste from William Lane Craig whose sophistry you’ve clearly bought into. No one denies that the universe had a beginning, but it didn’t have an ontological beginning. The past present and future are all real, they all exist. The universe didn’t come into being at the big bang, the universe in its entirety already existed. The big bang is just a low point in the entropy of the block universe that represents a boundary between our universe and the possibilities of others. Please do yourself a favor and learn this.

        5. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is totally impotent against my argument, but if you are as stupid as I think you are, you’ll never understand that. Copy and paste all you want.

        Interesting to note, since you quote Vilenkin, I can do the same. Alex Vilenkin said in an interview:

        In quantum physics, events do not necessarily have a cause, just some probability. As such, there is some probability for the universe to pop out of “nothing.” You can find the relative probability for it to be this size or that size and have various properties, but there will not be a particular cause for any of it, just probabilities.

        If you combine the probability of quantum mechanics with the B-theory of time, you can a strong picture that the universe doesn’t need a cause and that it never began to exist in the true ontological sense.

        6. If you have an aversion to pseudo-science why do you believe the bible? Ohhhh snap!

        Seriously learn a little science before you try and use it to “prove’ god exists. It only makes people laugh at you. I’ve heard all the crap you have thrown at me already. It may work on 18 year old college freshmen, but not me.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        You still don’t actually understand those big Latin terms you throw around. Do you think it makes you look cool? It doesn’t. You sound like a teenager misusing words like you do. It’s ridiculous.

      • Lizzie

        Try looking for it.

      • J. Polanco

        Then don’t speak for her.

      • RonPaul2012

        You seem to think that you have won the ‘debate’ and that everyone else has forfeited so…

        Why are you still here?

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Is that how you “win” all your arguments? If you declare you won, then that’s the same as winning, right?

        So far, you have 100% failed to provide a compelling case for any of these assertions you have made:

        * Slavery was totally awesome and slaves had tons of rights and freedoms and it was just like regular employment.
        * The universe was created somehow by a being of some kind.
        * A god exists of the sort you think exists.
        * Fetuses are people and deserve rights pre-viability.
        * These un-demonstrated rights should override those of the women involuntarily hosting fetuses.
        * Doctors routinely give out tubal ligations and hysterectomies to women seeking birth control.
        * There’s a compelling reason to force small children to bear rapists’ babies.

        Not a single one of these assertions has been demonstrated adequately–or even just a little bit–by you. Not a single one. You’ve been presented with plenty of evidence refuting your claims and every one of your fallacy-laden arguments has been dismantled systematically, to the point that only a complete moron wouldn’t feel utterly humiliated to show his face around here. And you don’t even realize just how badly and thoroughly you’ve been demolished.

        It’s very clear to me that your positions are irrational and without merit, and that you hold them largely because of dogmatic indoctrination rather than any force of evidence or reason. Your purpose here has been dishonestly stated from the start–your “OH WOW I’M JUST SO PUZZZZZZZLED HERE, CAN YOU ALL HELP ME OUTTTTTTT” post was actually just a pseudo-intellectual opening shot. But it was also a lie. (edited) We’ve demonstrated that. Your position as stated demonstrates ignorance. We have demonstrated that hundreds of times in this very comment board. And you believe things that are both monstrous and inhumanly cruel. And yet you are still going to leave your computer desk today and think of yourself as a fine, upstanding, moral, loving person. I don’t even know what to think about someone so unable to comprehend the depth of his own wrongness and barbarity. At least you’re the one who has to live with your lies and brutality. Not me.

      • http://patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism Libby Anne

        I understand that you are speaking from your experience with Joe here in this thread and feel that he has indeed demonstrated that he is a liar, but my comment policy requires commenters to stay away from ad hominems and instead attack specific arguments. In other words, “the things you are saying are false” or “the things you are saying are ignorant” rather than “you are a liar” or “you are ignorant.” I realize that this may sound pedantic, but if I am to enforce my comment policy on one side I must enforce it on all sides.

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Thank you for the reminder. I will amend the comment.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Ever read Krauss’ ”A Universe From Nothing“ and Hawking’s “The Grand Design”?

      • Jennifer Starr

        I’ve read Hawking but I very much doubt that you have read either. I think you’ve copied and pasted things by people who claim to have read them.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Then you see why your accusation is so side-splitting funny, right?

        “As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing.” – “The Grand Design” – Hawking

      • Jennifer Starr

        Out of context.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Prove it.

        “Spontaneous creation [from nothing] is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – “The Grand Design” – Hawking (Bracket mine.)

      • fiona64

        One sentence, with your “brackets,” is still out of context.

        I’m sorry you were unable to understand Dr. Hawking’s work.

      • RonPaul2012

        Strawman.

      • fiona64

        Why don’t you go color while the adults talk?

      • J. Polanco

        Ms. Anne doesn’t countenance ad homs and I don’t respond to them: http://bit.ly/14uOQGH (Sec. 1 & Sec. 2)

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        That wasn’t an ad hominem, AND YOU BLOODY WELL KNOW IT.

        Please, go and educate yourself before spouting off about things you know nothing about.

      • Cake

        LOL

      • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

        Once you provide one, we’ll look at it.

  • Lizzie

    prohibere falsum Latinum

  • Lizzie

    It’s hilarious that if someone refutes you, there are only a few possible outcomes 1)you don’t reply and then claim later to not have seen it 2)say the words strawman 3)attempt to say it’s a fallacy for X reason or 4)tell them they’re being gullible, 5)say they’re being stupid or listening to the voices in their head 6)attach some [poorly]google translated latin [wait, do you prefer bing?] and say try again. Et voila! a Polanco comment in action.

    • J. Polanco

      If only you put a little bit of that effort in actually refuting the unequivocal evidence you begged me with so much sincerity to present to you for God’s necessary existence …

      • Lizzie

        I can’t. Like I said, it’s actually hurting my head to read such pseudo-intellectual garbage. Sorry. I’ve seen the people in the comments of your links refute you and how you ignore them as well.

        Maybe next time you’re trying to start a debate (which is don’t think you’re doing.), be civil. And be willing to listen to what other people say. Maybe copy and paste in smaller chunks, since that’s all you seem to do. I have no incentive to engage with you, as I’ve seen the way you treat people who do engage, and it’s not nice. (see above 6 ways to comment like you)

    • Jennifer Starr

      I think he has a few pre-packaged responses and that’;s about it.

  • Alix

    Given that you’ve asserted a great deal without evidence, that means we can happily ignore you.

  • Alix

    Funny, I was just thinking that about you…

  • Lizzie

    No thanks. You clearly haven’t been interested in debate since you got here. You were asked questions from go that you were telling other people to answer themselves. You’re dodging everything, copying and pasting, and you’re being rude and disingenuous.

  • Alix

    I have indeed refuted both your so-called evidence and your bad logic. So have several others. Your rebuttals, such as they are, consist of nothing but you either linking to or copying and pasting the very same “arguments” that have already been refuted, or simply asserting, over and over, that your evidence is unassailable.

    It’s been assailed. You haven’t provided a lick of new evidence. The burden here is not on me.

  • Alix

    *snerk*

  • Alix

    …I wouldn’t go so far as to call this a “debate.” Shooting fish in a barrel, maybe. A barrel of laughs, to be sure. Actual reasonable, good-faith debate? Nah.

  • Alix

    …what?

    • fiona64

      He appears to be saying that Lizzie is bigotry. How odd.

  • fiona64

    You know, for a guy who claims that he “will not repeat himself,” you seem to do so a good deal of the time.

    Pitiful, really, that all you have to support your “argument” are bumper sticker phrases and essays that you have *plagiarized.*

  • fiona64

    One can only presume that you were looking in the mirror when you wrote those words.

  • fiona64

    Oxymoron alert …

  • Lizzie

    I was actually waiting for this one, this is the only one of the CPC/AHA handbook you HAVENT used yet.

    “I’m sure you’d fly off the handle if I said PP was all about Eugenics today because many of their clinics are in poor neighborhoods…”

    I would, because it would be a LIE. Are you saying it? That makes you a LIAR.

    Have you ever THOUGHT about why someone black would need an abortion? OF COURSE YOU HAVENT YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT PEOPLE YOU’RE OBSESSED WITH FETUSES.

    You’re not saving lives. If you wanted to save lives you’d start breaking laws and killing people and leveling clinics. IT’S ABOUT YOUR EGO AND FEELING GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF

    • myintx

      “You’re not saving lives. If you wanted to save lives you’d start breaking laws and killing people and leveling clinics.” Uh… no… because I don’t believe in killing innocent beings – born or unborn. Do you think that’s the only way to stop the senseless killing of the unborn? There are other ways to solve problems – other than killing.

      “Have you ever THOUGHT about why someone black would need an abortion?” The same excuses other races use… ‘cannot afford a child’… ‘would interfere with my plans’.. ‘not the right time for a child’… ‘husband/partner wants me to have an abortion’… all avoidable reasons. As I said, there are other ways to solve ‘problems’ – other than killing.
      Are you saying most PP clinics aren’t located in poor neighborhoods? I believe you know that is false.
      And, no, it’s not about my ego… it’s about wanting to save lives. But, if you think it’s about my ego – for you it’s about not wanting to be responsible…for you its about placing your wants over the needs of another being. There’s a word for that… selfish.

      • Defamate

        . But, if you think it’s about my ego – for you it’s about not wanting to
        be responsible…for you its about placing your wants over the needs of
        another being. There’s a word for that… selfish.

        Is that why you won’t gestate an ivf embryo/ Your ego too big?

      • http://patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism Libby Anne

        Please watch the personal insults.

      • myintx

        I hope that was addressed to others too… :)

  • Lizzie

    I don’t care what it looks like or what it is. If it’s inside a person who doesn’t want it there, that’s what matters. A born person comes before an unborn one.

    • myintx

      The LIFE of a born person can come before the LIFE of an unborn one.. The CONVENIENCE of a born person should NOT come before the LIFE of an unborn one.

      • Lizzie

        You don’t get to decide convenience.

        The life of an already born pregnant person comes before the one who has not been born. Being born is the divide from human to human being. Being separated from the pregnant person makes all the difference.

      • myintx

        “Being separated from the pregnant person makes all the difference.” You keep saying that.. but the law disagrees in about 41 states. And, I don’t get to decide convenience, but in post viability abortion laws, doctors do. They should also decide it in pre-viability laws too.

        And, the unborn are human beings. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672893/

      • Mirable

        http://www.sullydog.com/sullysites/qm/classicmeat/10-01.htm

        You and I contain much, much more information, both
        genetic and otherwise, than a blastocyst. That’s why I can write this
        column and you can read it, whereas a blastocyst just.. .sits
        there. Indeed, that is the exactly the point of stem cell research:
        the stem cells in the blastocyst have not yet acquired the
        molecular programming required for differentiation, and so they
        remain pluripotent, awaiting the necessary molecular
        signals (the information) that will tell them whether
        to become nerve or muscle, skin or bone.

        Yes, once upon a time we were blastocysts, too. Nothing
        more than a little clump of cells, each of them a snippet of DNA
        surrounded by cytoplasm. But that DNA was later transcribed into RNA,
        and that RNA was translated into proteins. And some of those proteins
        were transcription factors that told other cells in the blastocyst
        what to do, when to divide, where to migrate. Transcription factors
        regulated the expression of still other transcription factors. Genes
        were turned on and off with clockwork precision. Some genes were
        methylated, so they could never be turned on again.

        In other words, the genome and the proteome of the blastocyst were
        changed as the embryo accumulated molecular information that the
        blastocyst did not have.

        The embryo became a fetus, with complex orientations of
        tissues–loaded with spatial, genetic, biochemical and mechanical
        information that simply did not exist in the embryo.

        The fetus became a child with a nervous system, and that nervous
        system sucked up information about the world, hard-wiring pathways
        for vision and movement, learning to make subtle distinctions between
        this and that, accumulating information that simply did not exist in
        the fetus.

        In other words, the blastocyst launched a genetic program that both
        extracted and acquired information. It didn’t start out
        as a human being. It became a human being, with a
        personality, feelings, attitudes and memories, by accumulating
        information that was not there before.

        Equating a blastocyst with a human being is like equating a brand new
        copy of an inexpensive spreadsheet program with the priceless
        databases that you’ll eventually build up with that program. It’s no
        less ridiculous than saying that a blueprint has the same value as a
        skyscraper–that it is the skycraper.

        No. They are not the same.

        —————————

        OH, and if you truly truly believed that little article you’d posted, you would be gestating an IVF ‘baby’ right this minute.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    Fiona’s right; you repeat yourself a lot. But it’s easier to do that than to actually provide evidence or a compelling argument, isn’t it?

  • Lizzie

    if your side cared about babies and adoption, they’d all be adopted. you’d have adopted instead of giving birth naturally. All the pro-lifers who whine about adoption should adopt all available kids, and then make adoption the beacon of wonderfulness, and then it will be a worthwhile alternative for some.

    • myintx

      Again.. do you want homelessness to end???? If so, how many homeless people have you invited to live with you?

      • Lizzie

        Again, how many IVF embryos who are faced with certain frozen death have you gestated to SAVE THEIR LIVES. YOU COULD BE THEIR HERO MYINTX.

        We’ve all seen how lacking in compassion and empathy your comments have been, you don’t need to bring up another group you’re doing nothing for.

      • myintx

        How many homeless people have you invited to live with you? Having an opinion on a moral issue does not obligate you to own it.

      • Mirable

        Lizzie is not the one advocating that everyone adopt a homeless person.

        You lose.

      • myintx

        I’m not advocating that everyone adopt a kid….
        But I’m sure Lizzie wants to see homelessness end. And, perhaps you do too. Doesn’t mean you have to let homeless people live in your house.

      • Lizzie

        Of course you’re not advocating that everyone adopt a kid. That would meant you cared about real people

        Because you don’t care about that potential innocent fetus once it’s an actual baby.

      • myintx

        Key word ‘EVERYONE’. No, I only want people who are qualified to be parents to adopt. Just because you think something is wrong (abortion, homelessness, stealing, rape, etc) doesn’t mean you have to own the situation (adopt, let homeless people live with you, join the neighborhood watch or police, take in a rape victim who might be too scared to live in her house, etc).

      • Lizzie

        So it’s “do as I say not as I do”.

        You’re trying to get laws changed. You’re trying to stop abortion all together. You go on and on about how wonderful adoption is, but you won’t participate in it yourself. This is extremely hypocritical.

      • myintx

        Wouldn’t you like to see laws changed to help the homeless? Does that mean you have to let some homeless people live with you until those laws are changed?

      • Lizzie

        I’m not currently fighting for laws regarding the homeless to be changed, so this is irrelevant.

      • myintx

        So, are you saying that anyone else that wants more laws to help the homeless needs to take in a homeless person or two?

      • Lizzie

        No, I’m saying that I’m not fighting for laws regarding the homeless to be changed, so this is irrelevant.

      • fiona64

        That post you just made right there? That’s a straw man.

      • Lieutenant Nun

        She keeps clinging to the homeless person analogy.

        Aw, hope springs eternal!

      • fiona64

        So it’s “do as I say not as I do”.

        Of course it is! She’s a classic authoritarian.

      • Lieutenant Nun

        Is that why you won’t adopt?

        Not qualified?

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Would you trust her with a kid? I wouldn’t…

      • Mirable

        False analogy.

        You are advocating that all women be forced to bear pregnancies against their will, yet you are unwilling to make that sacrifice yourself.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Like I said, she advocates slavery.

      • Mirable

        Yes, she does.

        And she uses the same tricks as the slavers – claim the moral highground, and that will somehow, magically, make your enslavement of others totes righteous.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        She’s upset because we won’t fall in line like good little breeders.

      • fiona64

        To be fair, that’s correct. You are not advocating that *anyone* adopt, actually. You’re just advocating that more children be placed for adoption, on the grounds that so many people want to adopt (despite evidence to the contrary).

        Those two positions seem to be at odds, in my mind … but hey. Rock on with your bad self, if that’s what helps you sleep at night.

      • myintx

        Most babies put up for adoption as newborns DO get adopted. Most adoptions work out. ALL abortions end in death (except the botched ones).
        And, at least I can sleep at night, knowing that I don’t support about 1 million unborn babies being killed every year – mostly for avoidable reasons.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    i. Burden of proof is on you.

    ii. That is deliberately provocative speech and not tolerable. Further, it misuses actual reality-based terms and replaces them with your fantasy-land terms.

    iii. We did a long time ago. You’re just ignoring those inconvenient smackdowns.

  • J. Polanco

    Ms. Anne doesn’t countenance ad homs and I don’t respond to them: http://bit.ly/14uOQGH (Sec. 1 & Sec. 2)

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    Mmm, yeah, one or two oddball cases caused by post-partum psychosis does not evidence make.

    In short, infanticide? Not something that happens with any regularity, AND YOU KNOW IT.

    • fiona64

      It’s anti-choice beliefs like hers that cause post-partum psychosis: women being forced to have more kids than they want or can handle. The blood of those INNOCENT BABIES is on her hands for that one …

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        *grumble grumble*

        I’m sure she thinks Andrea Yates just hated her kids….

    • myintx

      And, perhaps it’s because of LAWS that we don’t have infanticide… or, the fact that people frown upon the senseless killing of babies… hmmm…

  • fiona64

    Post-partum psychosis comes from being forced to have children you don’t want. So, the blame on that one belongs strictly on your side of the ledger. If you want to see more cases of post-partum psychosis, rock on with your stupid anti-choice beliefs.

    • myintx

      Yea right…. Guess what. Unfortunately, abortion is still legal and mothers occasionally still kill their newborns. hmmm

      • fiona64

        Ever heard of Andrea Yates? Post-partum psychosis … from being made to have more children than she wanted. And she is not the only one … just one of the more famous.

        Just a few articles on the matter:
        http://www.webmd.com/hw-popup/postpartum-psychosis
        http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/05/18/making-babies-for-jesus-bbc-highlights-the-lunacy-of-the-quiverfull-evangelical-movement/
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15969234
        http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606697894/fulltext

        “Yea right” indeed … your dismissiveness of reality is duly noted. You want to force even MORE women to have unwanted children … which will just cause more of what you claim doesn’t exist.

        Your assertions are risible at best.

      • myintx

        If a woman doesn’t want her child, she can give it up for adoption. No need to kill.

      • Shayna

        Right, because the husband in the story you linked to – the one who thought it was a good idea to get his mentally ill wife pregnant nine times – would totally have been OK with that.

        ***Note – I am not saying anyone with a mental illness can’t be a good parent. However, when the husband mentions his wife’s uncontrolled schizophrenia, depression, & bipolar disorder – I don’t know what they were thinking about adding another child to their family.

      • myintx

        If he wouldn’t have been OK with adoption, he probably wouldn’t have been OK with abortion either. They likely weren’t even doing anything to prevent getting pregnant.

      • Mirable

        That doesn’t erase the problem of NOT WANTING TO BE PREGNANT.

      • myintx

        There’s a solution to that – it’s called waiting for about 9 months. (in most cases less than that because by the time a woman finds out she is pregnant, it will be less than that before the baby is born). Patience… A few months of patience, sacrifice and doing the right thing means the likelihood of an entire LIFETIME for a new being.
        Other solutions include the morning after pill, multiple forms of birth control to minimize risk, oh, and abstaining, before you end up with an unwanted pregnancy.

      • Lizzie

        Right, but when there are millions of pro-lifers out there who want to force women to give birth, and in the same breath claim they don’t have to adopt to care. Well, if you think adoption is so great, why not participate in the process? If it’s the best idea, why not adopt, so in the future when you’re trying to give us your screed you can say “see! i adopted!”, but instead all you can say is “DON’T BE SELFISH”, when that’s exactly what you’re doing. Being selfish.

      • myintx

        There are many pro-lifers that have adopted, volunteered, raised money, etc to support their cause. Again, you don’t have to ‘own’ an issue in that way to have an opinion on it.
        You apparently don’t like to see kids in foster care. Maybe their parents are in jail and the kids are in foster care. How many foster kids do you have?
        If you think homelessness is wrong, have you let any homeless people in your living room? You haven’t? I guess that means you love to see homeless people?
        Some people are for Obamacare.. does that mean they owe money to those that are against it because their premiums will be going up by several thousand dollars?

      • Mirable

        You’re not one of them.

        You could adopt a special needs child – you haven’t.

        You could gestate multiple ivf embryos to term – you haven’t

        You are quite clearly well off and healthy. You have the resources for both of the above.

        Yet you REFUSE to help in a meaningful way, instead you argue on the internet.

        How useless.

      • Lizzie

        You cant tout how amazing something is and then be too good for it yourself. You can’t try to change laws to make an uptake in adoptions but not reduce the amount of children in foster care right now. It makes you a hypocrite.

      • myintx

        “You cant tout how amazing something is and then be too good for it yourself.” Tell that to the members of congress who pushed Obamacare on us… it’s apparently too good for them ;)

        And, if you want tougher gun control laws in your state, does that mean you have to drive your gun-loving neighbor to another state to buy his guns? Or pay to move him to another state if he doesn’t like the gun laws you support? Does that make you a hypocrite for supporting a law and then refusing to help those that might be ‘impacted’ by the law?

        It’s up to the people to follow the laws in their state. If abortions are restricted, it’s up to couples to minimize the risk of getting pregnant. If people were more responsible, we wouldn’t have so many unexpected pregnancies in the first place.

      • Lizzie

        “And, if you want tougher gun control laws in your state, does that mean you have to drive your gun-loving neighbor to another state to buy his guns? Or pay to move him to another state if he doesn’t like the gun laws you support? Does that make you a hypocrite for supporting a law and then refusing to help those that might be ‘impacted’ by the law?”

        You are failing at analogies. I can’t even begin to try to figure this out.

        The fact is if you think adoption is the best option, why isn’t it an option you’ve explored personally? Why is it that you’re just telling people what they should do, instead of teaching “responsibility” by your wonderful godly example?

      • myintx

        My analogies weren’t failures.. You just didn’t have an answer for them. If you see your neighbor abusing his child, does that mean you need to agree to adopt the child before you intervene? Because if you don’t agree, and call the police, that child may be put in the system after the father is put in jail… And, if a born child being put in the system is better than that child being killed by his abusive father, it should be the same for an unborn child as well.
        I did teach by my “wonderful godly example” by not killing my unborn child when I was pregnant. I wanted my child, so I didn’t put it up for adoption when it was born. But if a woman doesn’t want her child, she should give birth and give the baby up for adoption – at least that way the baby is ALIVE and has the opportunity to live a full and productive life….

      • night porter

        Your analogies are failures because you are demanding that people put themselves in harm’s way while being unwilling to make the same sacrifice yourself

        Do as you say, not as you do. That is your motto.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        You didn’t just fail.

        You fell out of the fail tree, failed to hit a single branch on the way down, and landed on the fail train.

        Good job!

      • fiona64

        Tell that to the members of congress who pushed Obamacare on us… it’s apparently too good for them ;)

        You clearly have zero knowledge of the Federal Employee Health Benefits program. The Affordable Care Act improves it significantly — and members of congress are covered by the FEHB.

        You’re welcome.

      • fiona64

        Maybe their parents are in jail and the kids are in foster care.

        If the plan is for adoption (which is what we’re talking about), that circumstance would not apply. The plan would then be for repatriation.

        For someone who touts adoption as some kind of panacea, you don’t know much about how it works.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        She doesn’t know much about how anything works — pregnancy, abortion, adoption, reality

      • myintx

        I know enough about adoption to know that it is a better option than KILLING an unborn baby. Most adoptions work out. ALL abortions end in death.

      • fiona64

        ::studies drinking game card::

        I think we have to drink an entire beverage now …

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        Can’t we just yell out BINGO or something? My poor liver would appreciate it.

      • fiona64

        Well, I guess that would be safer for all of us …

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        As would mine.

        I’m really not supposed to be drinking anyway, what with the Hep C…

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        Oh yeah, that sucks. I’m just trying to become immortal :P

      • Lieutenant Nun

        No doubt you’ve heard of those Buddhist monks who waste away and are mysteriously mummified?

        Well I was reading something recently, and apparently the monks, in the months leading up to their deaths, would consume certain foods that will essentially ‘preserve’ their bodies once they expire.

        Which got me thinking – I wonder if there is some similar trick that would explain why many of the Catholic saints are so perfectly preserved? Other than brilliant embalming, of course.

        http://www.tamqui.com/buddhaworld/Self-mummification

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        I hadn’t ever heard of that. Fascinating!

        As to the Catholic saints, I wasn’t aware they were well-preserved usually.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Eh, I’m asymptomatic, I just don’t want to do anything that’ll help it along.

      • night porter

        Every time myintx says something stupid, give your kitty a kiss!

        Or a noogie!

        Gawd, I love giving noogies to my kitties. Every single one has HATED it bhahahahaha

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Gracie likes noogies. Where is that cat…

      • sam

        Or switch to water!

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Heh, the way she’s going, I’d be in hospital with a lovely case of hyponatremia.

      • fiona64

        There’s a solution to that – it’s called waiting for about 9 months.

        Deliberately obtuse. Again. You continue to act as though being pregnant is all sunshine and fairy farts.

        A few months of patience, sacrifice and doing the right thing means the likelihood of an entire LIFETIME for a new being

        Or, possibly, the death of a born, sapient, sentient woman. You know, the person whom you continue to erase from the picture.

      • myintx

        Digging your way of the straw still? of all the survey’s I’ve seen on reasons women have an abortion, ‘Fear of possibly dying during childbirth’ was never on one of them. If anything is ‘obtuse’, its your lame ‘possibly, the death…’ argument.

      • Mirable

        That might not be the #1 reason here, but it sure is a big reason in developing countries.

        World’s Top Five Causes Of Disease
        Burden In Young People And Adults Ages 15-44

        Female: 1.
        Maternity
        2. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 3.
        Tuberculosis 4. HIV Infection 5.
        Depression

        Male: 1. HIV Infection 2. Tuberculosis 3.
        Motor Vehicle Injury 4. Homicide And
        Violence 5. War

        Source: WHO

        Girls
        aged 15-19 are twice as likely to die from childbirth
        as women in their twenties; those under age 15 are five
        times as likely to die.

        Source: WHO

        Maternal
        mortality is so high in the developing world (1 in 48)
        that it is customary
        for Tanzanian women about to give birth to
        bid farewell to their older
        children.


        Michele Landsberg, TORONTO STAR, Sat., Sept. 30, 2000,

        p. L1 “U.N. Executive Council Fights Inequality With Shocking Facts
        and Figures”

      • myintx

        Again, “fear of death” isn’t among the reasons women typically use to KILL their unborn babies… About 1 million a year in the US alone.

      • King Rat

        And what if it was? Would you permit abortion then?

      • fiona64

        your lame ‘possibly, the death…’ argument.

        You continue to deny the reality that women can, and do, die of pregnancy-related complications. The information has been provided to you repeatedly, with sources.

        Like I said, you kick science to the curb all of the time because you can’t handle the cognitive dissonance that it creates in your mind.

        Oh, and flagged for deliberately provocative language.

      • myintx

        Women die from abortion related complications too..
        It’s a strawman… Even if no one died from childbirth, you’d still be for the senseless killing of unborn babies.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        You’re right, they do. Of course, people die of pregnancy-related complications far, far more often (death from abortion complications is 0.6/100,000, death from pregnancy/labor is 15-20/100,000, so that’s 25x-30x the risk, or 150%-200% increased risk, from pregnancy). They also have health complications far more often- did you know over 1 million women a year are permanently injured by pregnancy and labor?* If health is your concern, rest assured abortion is far safer than pregnancy and labor.

        *All statistics valid for the US only

      • Lizzie

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

        OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of abortion compared with childbirth.

        METHODS: We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.

        RESULTS: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

        CONCLUSION: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

      • fiona64

        More deliberately provocative language.

        And you might want to look up what “straw man” means … since you clearly don’t understand the term.

      • Mirable

        haha, she’s learned a new word ‘strawman’

      • fiona64

        I’m waiting for her to start using “jejune” as though she knows what it means. I swear, we’re her walking, talking dictionaries.

      • redlemon

        No, because that “waiting” for 9 months can be just as bad. Pregnancy does all sorts of things to hormones and the mind. Many women who are at greatest risk of postpartum psychosis have established mental illness to begin with and many of those medications cannot be safely taken during pregnancy. Psychotic episodes during pregnancy can be extremely dangerous. And if the woman gives up her baby, postpartum psychosis STILL can manifest. Giving up the baby doesn’t magically take away the triggering hormone fall. Psychosis is psychosis- it isn’t much better without a baby.

      • myintx

        Well, if there are abortion restrictions, abortion clinics could shift their services and start providing pregnancy counseling. Showing women how to get the help they need during their pregnancy – financially and emotionally. Many mental issues can be helped via counseling.

      • Shayna

        Were you not listening? Post-partum psychosis is caused by unbalanced chemicals in the brain. Counseling (without medication) will do little to nothing.

        Women’s clinics already provide pregnancy counseling. Sometimes that leads to abortion, sometimes it leads to pre-natal care, sometimes it even leads to adoption referrals. They are already doing what you want them to do, they are also doing what other women need them to do.

      • fiona64

        Isn’t it a lucky thing that Planned Parenthood *already does that*?

        http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/prenatal-care-4255.htm

      • redlemon

        No. No, you have a gross misunderstanding of psychosis if you think it can be helped by counseling. Psychosis is a break with reality. That is how some women can convince themselves that killing their toddler is better then leaving them alive. Not all cases are that extreme, but very, VERY few can be properly handled with counseling. First off, how would someone even control it through counseling? If a woman comes to a counselor and says that the devil is out to get her soul, do you honestly think that sitting down and having a rational conversation is going to convince otherwise? Do you honestly believe that Andrea Yates wouldn’t have killed her children if someone had just rationally told her that she was thinking wrong? If so, go and study psychology. You’re woefully ignorant on the topic. Second, a single psychotic episode makes future psychotic episodes more likely- the more you have, the more you open yourself up to future psychosis. If you have postpartum psychosis once, your risk rises dramatically the next time around. Which is why I will never have another baby. I’ve experienced two episodes of psychosis in my life and I refuse to put myself through another if I can do anything in my power to help it.

      • fiona64

        You seem to resort to this absurd bumper-sticker slogan whenever cognitive dissonance kicks in …

      • myintx

        Nothing has kicked in dear. There is no cognitive dissonance. A mother shouldn’t kill her born baby. She shouldn’t kill her unborn baby either.

      • Mirable

        You don’t even know what ‘cognitive dissonance’ is, do you?

  • Defamate

    The original arguments used against abortion and even contraception had to do with female chastity.

    It wasn’t until after RvW that people started to pretend that fetii were ‘unborn babies’.

  • fiona64

    More deliberately provocative language.

  • Mirable

    Wooosh, over your head like a 747.

    But then again, I am not surprised.

    • myintx

      Nope.. I got it.. I got that the ‘article’ you posted was a biased opinion piece. As evidenced by the biased non-scientific conclusion with the ‘conservative agenda’ bs.

      “It became a human being, with a
      personality, feelings, attitudes and memories, by accumulating
      information that was not there before.”
      The author is even saying that a newborn – one second out the womb isn’t a full human being. Therefore, with your twisted logic, it’s ok to kill it.

      • Lizzie

        from the article “The conservative agenda takes it as bedrock that babies are more precious than murderers.”

        Well, don’t you think that’s true myintx? Don’t you think an innocent baby is worth more than a guilty murderer?

        It’s nice (not) how you are able to push away everything we send you because of it’s bias, but you’re allowed to show us the “truth” from anyplace you think of.

      • fiona64

        She pushes away the actual scientific information because she doesn’t like the cognitive dissonance it creates, if you ask me …

      • Lizzie

        Exactly.

      • myintx

        Would you rather see a convicted rapist killed or an innocent unborn baby?

      • Lizzie

        That’s the point: it’s what the pregnant person wants. Not me or you.

      • myintx

        So, if a pregnant woman wants to kill her toddler instead of her unborn baby, that’s OK too? after all, “it’s what the pregnant person wants”… She has a ‘choice’ if she already has a kid. When there is a another life involved, there shouldn’t be a choice to kill.

      • King Rat

        Flagging this because it is inappropriate and inflammatory.

        You should know better.

        A born child can be handed off to someone else who will care for it.

        An embryo *cannot* be handed off to anyone.

      • fiona64

        It always amuses me to see the regularity with which the anti-choice are pro-death-penalty. And myintx is there, right on cue …

      • King Rat

        The author is correct and science backs up his claims, cupcake.

        And yes, human babies are born earlier than other mammals. The offspring of most other mammals can just get up and go. Human babies can’t. Why are human babies born early? This is because of our large brains. If human fetuses stayed in the womb for much longer, they would never get out and birth would always be fatal.

      • myintx

        The author is biased. As evidenced by the end of the article…

      • fiona64

        … says the woman who sites LieSiteNews.

        LMAO.

      • Lieutenant Nun

        Disprove the science, Einstein.

  • Mirable

    And you support killing of fully formed unborn babies in their mothers’ wombs

    They aren’t fully formed until they are born.

    And not once have i said that I support the abortion of VIABLE fetii.

    You, as usual, are trying to pretend that everyone here is in a mad rush to kill fetii at 36 weeks.

    Pathetic.

    Predictable.

    Which one was conceived in rape?

    Yeah, we get it. You think more of an embyro than a little girl whose body will be ripped apart by pregnancy. The feelings of the embryo matter more to you. How depraved!

    • myintx

      “They aren’t fully formed until they are born. ” lol..

      “And not once have i said that I support the abortion of VIABLE fetii.” BUT, you don’t want laws to restrict it. So, if you support the mother ‘choosing’ to kill, which you do, you might as well be helping the abortion doctor with the procedure.

  • Lizzie

    “And, if pregnant women get all their prenatal checkups on time, take vitamins, and see a dentist on a regular basis, they minimize the risk.”

    And if you can’t afford check-ups, vitamins and seeing a dentist regularly? What about then?

    “Oh no… I might get gingivitis – better kill my unborn child. geez.”

    Wow, what an empathy-lacking callous statement.

    It’s amazing to me how you turned they very real possibility of LOSING TEETH (which, if you lose a tooth can cost close to $10,000 — to fix one tooth.) and getting osteoporosis to “oh no i might get gingivitis”

    • myintx

      Wow. I can’t believe you said I was lacking empathy and then immediately said that the risk of losing a tooth was worth killing an unborn child for.

      • Mirable

        Try losing all of your teeth..

        or going blind

        or becoming permanently disabled for life

        You know, this is why people are not *required by law* to injure themselves in order to save another.

        We don’t FORCE people to go into burning buildings to rescue others.

        Yet you are completely content to force women to put health and life at risk for a microscopic embryo.

        You are the one who lacks empathy – for everything but a zygote.

      • myintx

        So you’re saying women have gone blind while pregnant with a ‘microscopic embryo’? really?

      • Lizzie

        Yes. It’s possible for a pregnant person to go blind because of the pregnancy.

      • myintx

        I said ‘microscopic embryo’ not just pregnancy in general.

      • night porter

        What point are you trying to make?

      • Lyric

        ‘Cause if you say “really?” with a lifted eyebrow and sufficient scorn, the actual facts will kick sullenly at the ground, say, “No, not reeeally,” and bugger off to annoy someone else.

      • King Rat

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10997544

        Night blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is common during pregnancy
        among women in Nepal. The authors assessed the risk of maternal death
        during and after a pregnancy with night blindness among women
        participating in a cluster-randomized, placebo-controlled vitamin A and
        beta-carotene supplementation trial in Nepal from July 1994 to September
        1997. Subjects were 877 women with night blindness and 9,545 women
        without night blindness during pregnancy. Women were followed from the
        time they declared that they were pregnant through the end of the study,
        representing a median follow-up of 90 weeks (interquartile range:
        64-121 weeks). Mortality of night-blind women in the placebo group was
        3,601 per 100,000 pregnancies. In comparison, the relative risk of dying
        among nonnight-blind women in the placebo group was 0.26 (95%
        confidence interval (CI): 0.13, 0.55), and the relative risk among women
        with or without night blindness in the vitamin A/beta-carotene group
        was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.91) and 0.18 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.36),
        respectively. Night-blind women were five times (95% CI: 2.20, 10.58)
        more likely to die from infections than were women who were not night
        blind. These findings show that night blindness during pregnancy is a
        risk factor of both short- and long-term mortality among women. Vitamin
        A/beta-carotene supplementation ameliorates this risk to a large extent.

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/26/us-poland-abortion-idUSTRE67P46Z20100826

        Poland lost a case in the European Court of Human
        Rights in 2007 to Alicja Tysiac, who nearly went blind after giving
        birth to a third child following failed attempts to find a doctor who
        would perform a legal abortion for her.

        http://www.patient.co.uk/health/idiopathic-intracranial-hypertension

        Who gets idiopathic intracranial hypertension?

        IIH is rare. It affects 1 or 2 people in every 100,000. It mostly
        affects women of childbearing age who are overweight or obese. However,
        men and children can sometimes be affected as well as people who are not
        overweight.

        More than 9 out of 10 people with IIH are obese women in the
        reproductive age range. However, in someone who is not overweight, there
        are some ‘risk factors’ that are thought to be associated with the
        development of IIH. There are many such rare ‘associations’ but some of
        these include:

        Taking (or after stopping) certain drugs such as steroids, some antibiotics, and oral contraceptive pills.

        Other diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus, sarcoidosis and kidney disease.

        Pregnancy.

      • fiona64
      • King Rat

        We told her a few weeks ago that blindness was a possible side effect of pregnancy.

        And we asked her if she would go blind in order to ‘give the gift of life’ – even if she was raped, or forcibly implanted with someone else’s ivf embryo. She said ‘yes, of course, I would go blind, NO PROBLEM’

        Honestly, I don’t think she puts any thought into her answers, whatsoever. She just makes shit up as she goes along.

      • night porter

        Didn’t you tell us that you’d go blind and wear a colostomy bag in order to give the gift of life to the ‘unborn baby’ that a rapist has just impregnated you with?

      • Mirable

        Oh, and the reason women living in poverty tend to be the ones who have the highest maternal mortality and disability rates is BECAUSE they cannot afford sufficient pre-natal care and nutrition before during and after the pregnancy.

        Why do you think maternal mortality rates are so high in the undeveloped world? 580k dead women a year.

      • Lizzie

        You try to erase the pregnant person as much as you can because they’re selfish and guilty, according to you.

        ANY reason a person wants an abortion is good enough. You don’t get to decide what is worthy or not.

      • myintx

        No.. I just happen to think that BOTH pregnant women and unborn children are valuable. They BOTH deserve to live. Apparently you are the one who wants to do the erasing here.
        And, I know that I don’t get to decide, but I can vote for lawmakers who can. Just like many states have (thankfully) passed post viability abortion laws to protect the unborn from senseless killing, I want to see laws passed to protect the unborn before viability too.

      • King Rat

        If you thought IVF embryos were valuable you’d have

        1) saved 100 of them, and not the single toddler

        2) be gestating some ivf embryos right now

        3) not be pretending that pregnancy is analogous to a kid sitting on the couch eating pizza

      • fiona64

        senseless killing

        According to the Myintx Drinking Game card, it’s time to take a swig from your neighbor’s drink! Bottoms up, everyone!

      • fiona64

        Way to deliberately miss the point (as usual).

        You are indeed lacking empathy, myintx. You have made it abundantly clear that the life and health of the born, sapient, sentient woman are of no importance to you because you cannot differentiate between an embryo and an infant.

  • fiona64

    And, if pregnant women get all their prenatal checkups on time, take
    vitamins, and see a dentist on a regular basis, they minimize the risk.

    Minimizing risk is not *eliminating risk.* I did all of those things, and I still spent my entire pregnancy puking (hyperemesis gravidarum). Women *die* from that, you know.

    Not that you care about women … you’ve made that abundantly clear. Who cares how sick and miserable the pregnant woman is, or whether she dies, because pweshus baybee …

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    Ooh, burn!

  • myintx

    And you like to flag my comments…. you violated the first 3 words of the comment policy on this board.

    • fiona64

      I’m only flagging the comments that violate the policy … I’m sure that if what I posted was a violation, one of the moderators will let me know.

  • King Rat

    Need I remind you that female slaves were

    1) traded like livestock

    2) raped and forcibly impregnated

    3) aborted their pregnancies with herbal remedies

    Are you saying that female slaves = slaveowners honey?

  • Olive Markus

    Most abortions occur during the embryonic stage. Same stage that you are happy with freezing away in a Petri dish. Plenty of people with beating hearts have their lives cut short because they are brain dead. Is that murder to you?

    • Lieutenant Nun

      wb olive!!

      • Olive Markus

        Thank you! :)

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      You’re back! Welcome back.

      • Olive Markus

        Thanks! Having vision/eyeglass issues and can’t look at a screen very easily at the moment :).

        I feel a little… Out of the loop now, to say the least. But I’m happy to be here!

    • fiona64

      Welcome back, Olive! We’ve missed you. :-)

      • Olive Markus

        I’ve missed you guys, too! Is it too late to keep harping on IVF embryos ;P. I feel like I’ve missed a lot.

  • night porter
  • night porter

    I know people with Osteoporosis that have never had kids

    Just so you know, giving someone osteoperosis, or any kind of disease constitutes ASSAULT.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X