American fanatic says ‘pro-lifers’ are being muzzled in the UK

American fanatic says ‘pro-lifers’ are being muzzled in the UK March 15, 2020

YESTERDAY we reported on the involvement of the Roger Kiska’s meddling in the case of two Swedish midwives who refused to carry out abortions and were justifiably denied state healthcare jobs.

The decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) not to hear a legal challenge mounted by Ellinor Grimmark and Linda Steen came at around the same time that the UK Supreme Court refused to hear a legal challenge against Ealing Council in west London in respect of its Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) which was intended to stop women being harassed by Christian anti-abortion fanatics.

Image via YouTube

The Supreme Court decision prompted American-born but Europe-based Roger Kiska, above, of the Christian Legal Centre, to pen a piece for Britain’s Christian Concern, with which he is closely involved.

Increasingly, it would seem, cultural forces are aggressively trying to wipe out any dissenting views about abortion  …

We have seen an onslaught of anti-life activity at the local government level and even by some members of Parliament. In 2018, while the Home Office rejected efforts to create buffer zones around abortion facilities as evidence suggested that the vast majority of protests have been peaceful, local councils such as Ealing have nonetheless been enacting Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) which have the same legal effect as creating buffer zones.

Earlier, in 2019, he wrote an article for Christian Concern headed “UK courts becoming abortion activists” in which he attacked a  High Court decision in Belfast.

In his latest article he wrote:

Life is precious. If as a society we ever get to a point where it becomes illegal to protest the taking of human life, as some abortion advocates would have, we as a society will have devolved into tyranny.

I have all the admiration in the world for those brave pro-life advocates who are facing criminal and civil punishments, and who are opposing censorship. They are modern day prophets. May their courage not be in vain.

Apart from his anti-abortion antics, Kiska is vehemently opposed to relationship and sex-ed lessons which are about to be introduced in UK schools (watch video).

Image via YouTube

The case on which he was commenting involved Alina Dulgheriu, above, a mother who was supported by a “pro-life vigil” outside the Ealing abortion clinic. She filed a High Court challenge against Ealing in April of 2018. The High Court accepted that her rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly had been infringed, but ultimately upheld Ealing’s PSPO.

The Court of Appeal had granted permission for the challenge to be appealed, but also sided with Ealing Council in an August 2019 ruling. The Supreme Court then refused to hear her challenge

Dulgheriu is now considering whether to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. She said:

I am devastated to hear that the Supreme Court has decided not to consider my appeal. My little girl is here today because of the practical and emotional support that I was offered outside a Marie Stopes centre, and I brought the appeal to ensure that other women did not have this vital support option removed.

It is unthinkable that any council would criminalise an offer of help to a woman who might want to keep her child. Ealing Council could have taken action in a way that would have safeguarded the essential help offered at the gate. Instead, they made charity a criminal offence and removed dedicated and caring individuals from public space without justification.

It is a travesty of justice to see the courts ignoring the impact this decision will have on vulnerable women who are in desperate need of a little help and support. The voices of these women have been sidelined throughout this process, even though they will be the ones most deeply affected by the removal of this life-changing support.

I am deeply grateful to all those who have supported me in bringing the legal challenge – without their incredible generosity this appeal would not have been possible. I am discussing my position with my legal team and will be considering all options, including an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. 

Pro-choice advocates pictured in Ealing in 2018. Image via Twitter.

It was reported in 2019 that campaigners had renewed calls for the government to create “safe-zones” around abortion clinics across the country after the Court of Appeal upheld a ban on pro-life protests in Ealing.

Ealing Council introduced the UK’s first ever exclusion zone banning anti-abortion protests within 100-metres of a clinic run by charity Marie Stopes after women complained of being harassed.

The Good Counsel Network (GCN), a Christian group which held vigils outside the clinic, denied intimidating women and argued that the ban breaches their rights including freedom of religion, expression and assembly.

In August 2019 three Court of Appeal judges unanimously dismissed the group’s appeal to have the ban overturned.


Browse Our Archives



TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

425 responses to “American fanatic says ‘pro-lifers’ are being muzzled in the UK”

  1. I cannot not at all see pro-life protest and offering of services to pregnant women as FANATIC. What makes it “fanatic” is the polaristic dialectics of people who say they are “Freethinkers”. Leftwing dialectics has NO NUANCE and it actually a mental blindfold and itself a kind of fanaticism.

  2. It’s not “pro-life”. It’s anti-freedom. A woman’s body is not yours to control. Don’t hasten the end of your dying religion even further by championing a primitive moral system that fails even the most basic of ethical hurdles.

    It won’t be around in a meaningful sense for all that much longer, and we’re all the better for it.

  3. Please read the article, in a free society, human beings have the right to walk into any building in Ealing, or elswhere in the UK without being harrassed and in some cases very scared by the intimidation and verbal nastiness they got from so-called ‘pro-life’ protestors. Our judiciary is not overloaded with evangelical x-tians, with their bible-agendas, unlike it appears to be in the US. It’s independent. It judged that Ealing’s use of a PCPO was legal. I repeat, people entering the Marie Stopes clinic were harrassed, harangued and intimidated so that some, I’ve read, had to turn back and not enter. So it’s their freedom to do something legal that was infringed. ‘Mental blindfold’ LMAO…right back atcha Mr Ponti.

  4. What has a woman’s choice got to do with you? The churches are emptying and your arguments are those of a brainwashed and sad supplicant manacled to a fictional and tyrannical god.

    We have noted many times on this site that CAPITAL LETTERS signify desperation to try to persuade in place of reasonable discussion based on research, evidence and facts. Try somewhere else. We know you for what you are and your limitations embarrass you and your religion.

  5. Women should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies. Skydive. Get a tattoo. Use drugs. Jump off a bridge for all I care. That is their choice. Now the distinct individual growing in her uterus which is the opposite gender to her own half the time and which has unique DNA in all instances IS NOT HER BODY. There is no logical way to say it would be.

  6. Go ahead, advertise your “services”, so that anyone who wants your input can voluntarily consult with you. But to do so outside a clinic is harassment, pure and simple. A woman entering an abortion clinic has already made her decision, and has already decided NOT to seek your assistance. Nobody in her position should have to fend off busybodies who claim to know what she should do, even though they know not a damned thing about her circumstances and reasons for seeking an abortion.

  7. Even the bible doesn’t call it a baby until it breathes. It is not an “individual” until is is …er… well, individual rather than a part of the woman, and it is ridiculous to consider it to have rights greater than that of the woman. The position that it is a “life” worthy of protection is a religious view, not a fact. Be my guest, preach that to all those who voluntarily come to your church, but do NOT try to impose a religious belief onto a secular public.

  8. It’s one thing to be for or against a particular socio-political idea. Writing letters to the newspapers or to political representatives is quite reasonable. However harassing people who disagree with you is fanaticism.

    Rightwing dialectics means refusing to accept that other people have opinions you disagree with, which is itself a kind of fanaticism.

  9. With all the problems inherent in your demographic, your cult is still trying to put its nose in other people’s business. Can you say “scapegoats?”

  10. When your kind offer much more than mere “services” and temporary help at best, pressing for state funding being diverted to help the newborns as well as their mothers you’ll be taken much more seriously.

    Until then I will pray Eldath, the Green Goddess, for you.

  11. The rate of abortion has been declining in the U.S. since 1980, and as of 2014 stood at 14.6 per 1,000 women. As a percentage, that’s 1.46%.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/17/509734620/u-s-abortion-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade

    The rate of miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion, has been constant for a long time. It varies with age of the woman, typically reported as 10% for young women and 40% for those over 45.

    Given that even a 10% rate of spontaneous abortions far exceeds the 1.46% rate of chosen abortions, I wonder how much money and effort pro-lifers are devoting to lowering the rate of the former.

  12. Ponti venter has all the certainty and confidence of the ignorant and none of the uncertainty and doubts of the informed and educated. Excellent doctors, treating distressed women, have been murdered by these pro life thugs who are also enthusiasts for executing death row prisoners who are usually black or non white. In Ireland women, raped by a priest, have still, until recently, been denied an abortion. They harass and threaten and shout their obscene vitriol to already distressed young women.

    These interfering thugs are, of course, anti contraception. The dishonesty of the entire repellent religion is that their priesthood is infested with priests who, while preaching and insisting on their stone age fictions being divine truths, are themselves daily exposed as cynical, pitiless paedophiles.

    I don’t think ponti venter will linger on this site. Like many before of his type he will soon be gone. He has nothing worthwhile to offer to defend himself. He will depart with his fantasies and, still in thrall to his superstitions, continue his miserable life.

  13. The “OH just shut up” type of response is exactly the type of haughty response one could expect from today’s left-wing freedom haters. You are talking about “a woman’s body” which supposedly does not belong to me. I am talking about the unborn life, which – although INSIDE that body – is not simply PART of the body. It is a new life and it is dependent on that body – but dependence is not the same as being completely part of like an organ orb a member. When the foetus isn not more there or the baby has been born no part of the female body has been lost – it is the same complete body as it had been before the pregnancy. Darwinian evolution cannot explain life (for example the highly complex mechanism that a bacterium uses to move) because life is teleological – a foetus does not become a donkey or a flower: even if it damaged in some way, it becomes a human being. Very interesting is the “mind your own business” – since when is it now allowed to comment on an issue of public morality – it does NOT matter what my religion is. Your growing HIDDEN religion is as disrespectful to vulnerable life as Hitler’s had been and as the Chinese root ideology right now is. The foetus teleologically is human; it develops into a complete human being; its birth does not diminish the body of the woman; it is thus not simply part of the woman’s body. I have patience where medical emergencies and rape are present; but I have the same right as anybody else to comment. To call it “fanaticism” is oppressing the freedom of public participation. If capital punishment is at stake, why would I not be allowed to say: I am against it? You simply have no sense of society and neither of humanness. The left liberal tradition grows more Nazi loke in ots own religion by the day.

  14. IT is not about the freedom of the woman to do with her body what she likes because the foetus is not part of the body in the same way that the liver or the hand is.

  15. In have been an intense researcher of ideological religious fervor for over 40 years. One of the characteristics of such fervent ideological religious fervor is haughtiness, ridicule, lack of rational engagement. Fanaticism of a different kind. Left wing liberal dialectics is a messy way of polarisation – it is a template mode predetermined reaction of finding one self moral high ground and spitting on all different opinions. It is factually a blindfold

  16. Insult like you want. You know very little about me. The issue is not church or mosque or synagogue – the issue is unborn human life. Stick to the issue. Argue rationally. Your moral carelessness is born from social Darwinism which has no place for vulnerable human life. Your vicious and haughty reactions may just be an indication of the uncomfortable feelings which you have about what you are doing.

  17. I am not a dialectical thinker. I am neither right wing nor left wing. I do not follow Hegel, Fichte, Marx, or Social Darwinism. I will not allow anybody to force me into a polarist position – I am talking about the issue of unborn human life. Naturalist materialism or dialectical materialism or capitalist competitive excellence ideas are all similar in one respect: they care little about the human being, especially the vulnerable.

  18. I could guess there is some kind of cult ideology at work here. People who hug trees but hate other humans. “Social services” – very day the left want more social services from the GOD the state. There is an inherent selfishness here: in Europe – and wherever you guys are – the youth has become a smaller component and now the elderly is helped out of life because there are not enough tax payers. If there is ever a contradictory group of people is the Green movement. They say they want to save the planet and then come to meet in huge planes and yachts and expect the tax payers to pay for their ideas. Why don’t you want a human being in your social care? You have gone through Darwinist capitalism and became greedy. Now the vulnerable has to be eliminated! Ouch! How do think one must believe you are rational rather that dialectically fixed?

  19. “What are you talking about?”

    Spend less time pointing fingers at others and work on regaining your sense of self-awareness. Then you can answer your own question.

  20. I suspect the “cult ideology” is in the other side, not here. Not to mention this gem as well as that BS of “tree huggers”: (…) is the Green movement. They say they want to save the planet and then come to meet in huge planes and yachts and expect the tax payers to pay for their ideas..

    When your kind is as involved on helping the already born whose families lack resources to sustain them -included those in developing countries- as is with the unborn, we will take you more seriously.

  21. As far as I know, the whole debate about Wade versus Roe later came from the other side – namely those involved initially changed their mind and may be – like the feminist movement – began to understand that they have been searching in the wrong direction. Talking lowering the rate of spontaneous abortions – I really do not think that there is any validity in this argument at all. Firstly – this is a medical problem. Since my wife and I experienced this ourselves – it is not something predictable: you discover it when it has already happened or gone to far. But to say nothing is being done is actually twisting an obvious truth. Friends of us have a daughter who was born prematurely – at 28 weeks the placenta died and an emergency caesarean was done and a little girl weighing 875 grams was born. Everything was done to keep her alive and today she is 14 and a top swimmer. Another friend has boy born at 25 weeks and weighing 550 grams and he has black belt in karate at 16. When the possibility of a miscarriage becomes clear, these days the parents, family and doctor will do everything possible to save the child. And when a young woman has a child and is deserted by the male, there is no more forced marriage: grand parents and family will help – my stepgranddaughter was cared for by the other grandparents until my daughter in law met my son – and from there on they together with both sets of grandparents cared for the girl. Next year she will come to University and live with us. That is what family does. The state is not a god and we must be prepared to take responsibility. It is strange that this type of desperate nonsensical argument is dug up. And what must we say if one left liberal in Kenya’s parliament wants to force her ‘pro choice” ideas on a whole country. It is time to recover some family life

  22. I’ll say one thing for you: you are funny. You say you are not a “dialectical thinker”. Ponti – you are not any kind of thinker. And you sure as hell are no writer. You don’t do paragraphs and the slabs of nonsensical meandering are boring and so stuffed with verbiage that they are unlikely to be read. They are not comprehensible because you yourself don’t understand what you are trying to say.

    The stream of consciousness, that you favour, did make me wonder if you were a James Joyce fan but I don’t think so. But to return to your one gift:- being funny i.e. ridiculous while seeing your self as an intellectual. I thought this was a choice effort and I thank you for giving me some moments of innocent merriment:

    ” Your moral carelessness is born from social Darwinism which has no place for vulnerable human life.”

    Ponti – just what the hell are you trying to say? What does it mean? What do you think it means?

    I suggest you leave your Joycean aspirations and perhaps read a little Ernest Hemingway. He favoured short sentences and. disliked adjectives. He has fallen out of fashion but the short stories are excellent.

    You need to work on your own sentences e.g. “Your vicious and haughty reactions may just be an indication of the uncomfortable feelings which you have about what you are doing.”

    Dear me, Ponti – even you must know you can improve.

    Kind Regards and keep practising.

    Broga

  23. Frankly, just this: “Darwinian evolution cannot explain life (for example the highly complex mechanism that a bacterium uses to move) because life is teleological – a foetus does not become a donkey or a flower: even if it damaged in some way, it becomes a human being.” says a lot.

    Not to mention his projections about “the left”. Seems like reasonable people of his kind are as rare as unicorns.

  24. You have no idea how much you are projecting right now. They can see your bullschit all the way to Alph Centauri.

  25. So a non-sentient clump of cells has more rights than the adult, thinking woman carrying it. Shows how your “freedom loving” doesn’t extend to half of the world’s population.

    You can comment all you want on a public forum. The rest of us can criticize you, rebut you and even ridicule you if we want. Funny how that works.

  26. If a pregnant person doesn’t want to carry the pregnancy, the *service* they want is REMOVAL OF THE PREGNANCY.

  27. Nope.

    YOUR KIND are trying to grant special *privileges* to a parasite to use an unwilling pregnant person’s organs.

    The pregnancy can be removed and survive or not on its own.

    That is NOT the pregnant person’s problem.

  28. The pregnancy is a PARASITE, that has no privilege to use an unwilling person’s organs.

    If the pregnancy can’t survive once removed, that’s NOT the unwillingly pregnant person’s problem.

  29. Sounds to me, from that list of characteristics, YOUR KIND is looking in a mirror at your own faults.

    YOUR KIND don’t get to tell others they have to privilege a parasite to use their organs if they don’t want to.

  30. the issue is undesired unborn human life

    Which makes it an unwanted PARASITE. If it can’t survive outside the pregnant person’s body, that’s NOT the unwillingly pregnant person’s problem.

  31. I could guess there is some kind of cult ideology at work here. People who hug trees but hate other humans.

    Wrong.

    Parasites don’t have special privileges, no matter what YOUR KIND claim in your authoritarian supernatural rage.

  32. Areas where theism controls have *measurably* worse social outcomes than those areas with secular rules control.

  33. Pregnant people have the right to refuse to grant special privileges to a parasite, and YOUR KIND can do little about it.

    We’re making sure you have LESS that YOUR KIND can do to impede a pregnant person from choosing whether or not to continue the pregnancy.

  34. ‘Unborn human life’ has no special value that it should be granted privilege to enslave the pregnant person if said pregnant person doesn’t WANT to continue the pregnancy.

  35. I’d believe it…do you have a cite for that, please?

    Could come in handy.

  36. I am not a dialectical thinker.

    Fixed that for you.

    I am neither right wing nor left wing.

    This is obviously untrue. You whine about “left-wing freedom haters” and you promote the conservative forced-birth agenda. There’s a saying among NFL players, you can BS the spectators but you can’t BS the other players. You’re trying to BS players, it isn’t working.

    I do not follow Hegel, Fichte, Marx, or Social Darwinism.

    I doubt anyone here follows those ideologies. I certainly don’t.

    I will not allow anybody to force me into a polarist position – I am talking about the issue of unborn human life.

    You’re trying to BS us again. Forced-birtherism is a polarist position. You may be talking about “unborn life” but, like all other forced-birthers, you refuse to consider the wants, needs and desires of the other person involved, the woman. Except you think of the woman as a mobile incubator, not the person who might make a decision you find icky.

    Naturalist materialism or dialectical materialism or capitalist competitive excellence ideas are all similar in one respect: they care little about the human being, especially the vulnerable.

    Your forced-birtherism shows you care little about half the world’s population, the women who might want abortions.

  37. Contraception in The Netherlands: the low abortion rate explained.

    People in the Netherlands consider unplanned pregnancy to be a large problem that society and decision-makers should and do seriously address. The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world. Special family planning programs in the Netherlands target groups at risk of unwanted pregnancy, particularly teenage pregnancy. Almost all secondary schools and about 50% of primary schools address sexuality and contraception. Sex education has largely been integrated in general health education programs. The mass media address adolescent sexuality and preventive behavior. Very large scale, nonmoralistic, public education campaigns that are positive towards teenage sexual behavior appear to be successful. Teens have wide access to contraceptive services through general practitioners who maintain confidentiality and do not require a vaginal exam and through subsidized family planning clinics.

  38. > I am not a dialectical thinker.

    Or any sort of thinker. Abortion is not the best sort of birth control.

  39. Now the distinct individual growing in her uterus which is the opposite gender to her own half the time and which has unique DNA in all instances IS NOT HER BODY

    Oh, going down this road again, are we?

    So if we’re working from the assumption that “unique DNA” (whatever that means) makes a person eligible for personhood, where do twins fall? Are twins not people? Are genetic chimeras not people?

    Furthermore, what stops us from considering HeLa cells a living person with rights? Those are cells with “unique DNA.”

    Really, you folks need to stop trying to pretend that biology makes statements regarding ethics when it clearly doesn’t. You can use it to inform your position but really, you’re hiding behind it and hoping that nobody will notice.

    Furthermore, you know as well as I do that the law is based on the widest held assumptions. We can agree that the mother is a person so the mother is a person with rights. Radical interpretations that replace the consensus of the majority with a minority view point that arose out of a concern to appear like good guys, not any particular concern for children, is not welcome, especially when they wind up striping the mother of her rights to do whatever she wants to to her body [1], nor are they legally founded. Because that’s not law.

    [1] for instance, she cannot have her uterus removed if she wished while pregnant. So that right there demonstrates you’re removing rights from the mother, who both of use agree is a person.

  40. Jesus Christ. Could you sound anymore self-indulgent?

    Don’t answer that, by the way. It’s not a challenge.

  41. Egoistical radicals that inherited a brand of Christianity designed to promote white supremacy will do anything aside from acknowledge their history to make themselves seem like the good guys, up to and and including burning the world down. Stripping the rights of woman in a usurpation of any ethical legal system is just the beginning.

  42. Same for an ova if it is not prevented from capturing a sperm cell. Abstinence kills us in our earliest stage.

  43. You do realize ova are also human life. You do realize every human born out of wedlock who is happy with their life has every reason to be grateful they were conceived, in spite of what churches say about sex outside of marriage?

  44. Only a fanatic would equate freedom of speech with harassing people and trying to prevent them from accessing medical care.

  45. You can’t have a human life without a living human ova. Yet the religious think nothing of letting it die. Hell, they’ll shame an unmarried woman who doesn’t let it die. The hypocrites.

  46. “Unborn”? Then not a human life. You seem well-versed in outdated ideologies, but still cling to the absurd notion that your personal definitions matter to anyone else. Now go away and read your thesaurus like a good boy.

  47. I’m waiting for him to declare that nocturnal emissions should be prosecuted as genocide…

  48. Go play on a freeway and die, dipshidiot69. Go be with your imaginary Sky Wizard and leave the decent, moral people alone. You’d be doing the world a favor. Because all I got from your post was “DERP DERPITY DERP!”

  49. Simple…. the decision to get an abortion IS NOT YOURS TO MAKE…. it is the decision of the person who is pregnant PERIOD.

  50. oh, lordy,…..will you go back to grade school and learn what punctuation and paragraphs are for????? You are trying to do a Sarah Palin , but with bigger words! It STILL says NOTHING.

  51. Ahhh, it is NOT a distinct individual. Until it is not living parasitically off the woman’s body, it isn’t distinct.

  52. Funny how when trolls come to atheist sites, they preface their rubbish views by telling us their qualifications for knowing better than we do about our (erroneous) world views. It comes across as arrogant and profoundly inaccurate stereotyping.

    Self-isolation looms for me, think I might just print the tee shirt. ”I’m a left-wing liberal dialectic Stay clear, I spit.”

  53. Cool and from the NCBI, but I read it and didn’t catch the particular fact cited.

    Or am I just thick from ‘Monday’ and *social isolation*?

    Thank you.

    🙂

  54. It isn’t about being “pro-life” when your kind harasses women and murders69 doctors. It’s about controlling women. Period.

  55. “Insult like you want. You know very little about me.”

    If I had a nickel for every time a hypocrite sat in judgment of a stranger on the internet and then objected when observations were made about them, I would be a wealthy woman.

  56. “polaristic dialectics”, is that with synergistic effects or through cognitive disequilibrium? Or maybe it’s just Vogon poetry.

  57. I think pv has been playing on one of those jargon creator websites. But it seems to have glitched because it’s got stuck on “dialectical”. Which may not means what they think it means.

  58. Amen. And let us not forget that 100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men. Where is it written that women must bear the consequences of men’s behaviour? Apart from in a handful of bronze age witterings by mad old men trying even 2000 years ago to remain relevant, which doesn’t actually count.

  59. Is that 3 or 4 counts of dialectical so far? Guess you picked a word an you’re sticking to it no matter what?

  60. Check the link or search for other articles. If the US rate is 6 times the Netherlands rate, then we see that education and birth control are much more effective than murders, bombings, or people screaming hate at pregnant women.

  61. Can you give us ANY examples of “People who hug trees but hate other humans?” Of course not — they don’t really exist.

  62. It’s IN her body, and still inextricably wired into it. So yes, it’s still her body.

    Oh, and DNA doesn’t make you an actual person. Being a conscious sentient being makes you a person.

  63. Also, if you’re going to blither about Magic DNA, isn’t the mother’s DNA magical too?

  64. It’s not a “just shut up” response, it’s a “just do your job” response. Learn the difference sometime, okay?

  65. …but dependence is not the same as being completely part of like an organ orb a member.

    No, but lack of a fully-functioning brain of its own is.

  66. The state is not a god and we must be prepared to take responsibility.

    Um…care to specify who isn’t taking responsibility?

  67. Here’s a thought. Do a little introspection and look at yourself and the sources you listen to. Then take responsibility for your own actions and those who share your ideology. This constant blaming of liberals, the left, progressives, minorities, LGBTQI, the liberal media, and all the other boogie monsters in your personal bubble of intellectually myopic stasis isn’t really productive but if it makes you feel better…

    …and thanks for posting here rather than shooting us. ;-{

  68. “You know very little about me.”

    If my hips were wider, I know you so well I could have given birth to you. You are a sad cliche, spouting a manifesto of Right to Life propaganda that is steeped in misinformation, political manipulation, theistic moralizing, emotional claptrap, and outright prevarications. You don’t care about reasonable and workable policy practices demonstrating that easy access to contraceptives, comprehensive sex education, and a safe and legal abortion policy actually decreases and/or eliminates the number of pregnancy terminations. Your focus is singularly focused on a clump of cells that might become a human being if only those feminist incubators would put their selfish best interests aside and listen to us menfolk who know better. But hey, don’t take my word for it:…

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87947512b35a82a5f2e226340103370b867ca67d5d3e89a8b5a27c4c3d9847d0.jpg

    Yeah, we know you.

  69. “I am not a dialectical thinker.”

    Your are not any kind of thinker. Anyone who writes as poorly as yourself, and you seem to be semi literate, cannot have read and understood Hegel, Fichte or Marx. You have a closed mind: narrow, judgemental, bigoted and wrapped in a suffocating religious belief that corrodes all freedom of thought and leaves you incapable of fresh thinking.

  70. Not if he is a priest. They often “service” pregnant women: and young girls. Tragically the women don’t want the “service.”

    Fascinating that despite the scores of contributors here disagreeing with him he is still, a lone, pathetic garbled voice, and convinced he is right. By that he confirms the bigotry and cruelty of his religioun and the reason for the disagreements.

  71. “So a non-sentient clump of cells has more rights than an adult woman.” —– NOPE. Just the SAME.

    “Thank you for showing yet again that the right wing could not care less about real people” —– Like the hundreds of thousands of real human beings killed each year by abortion?

  72. “You can’t have a human life without a living human ova. Yet the religious think nothing of letting it die” —– A human ova is NOT biologically an individual human being. Neither is sperm. ONLY when combined does each component cease being an individual component, and becomes an individual human being.

  73. “The fetus doesn’t have a right to use a pregnant person’s body without consent.” —– Sorry, but that human being has EVERY right to be right where he/she is. The woman gave consent when she chose to engage in the sole behavior that naturally produces a child.

  74. “The pregnancy is a PARASITE, that has no privilege to use an unwilling person’s organs.” —– FALSE. That human being is there and dependent through no fault of his//her own. The woman is free to abstain from engaging in the sole behavior that naturally produces a child. Choosing to abstain from that behavior does NOT entitle her to evade the consequences/results.

  75. “YOUR KIND are trying to grant special *privileges* to a parasite to use an unwilling pregnant person’s organs.” —– NOPE. We are asserting that the human being growing in utero – and who is there and dependent through no fault of his/her own – possesses the SAME rights as any other human being.

    “That is NOT the pregnant person’s problem.” —– It IS when she and her partner are responsible for forcing that human being in that situation.

  76. “Ahhh, it is NOT a distinct individual.” —– It is according to biology and embryology.

    “Until it is not living parasitically off the woman’s body, it isn’t distinct.” —– You clearly don’t understand the terms or biology.

  77. No more speicial then her prenatal child’s. In fact, her prenatal child’s DNA is DIFFERENT than hers.

  78. “Pregnant people have the right to refuse to grant special privileges to a parasite, and YOUR KIND can do little about it.” —– Nobody is asking for “special privileges” – just the SAME rights as all other human beings.

  79. “the decision to get an abortion IS NOT YOURS TO MAKE.” —– Riiiiight. Just like the decision to beat one’s wife isn’t any of your business either, right?

  80. “And let us not forget that 100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men.” —— LIE.

    “Where is it written that women must bear the consequences of men’s behaviour?” —– Guess you don’t understand how babies are made.

  81. Not minding one’s business? Is that anything like when leftist Aussies and Brits criticize our 2nd Amendment not the least of who is the Aussie former Deputy Prime Minister Fischer? He still spouts off once in a while.

  82. You’re no scientist……. and yes, I AM. I do understand the terms as well as the biology….. without all the religious b s added on

  83. “You’re no scientist……. and yes, I AM.” —– So? You’re still wrong.

    “without all the religious b s added on” —– LOL. I’ve NOT added anything on to anything.

  84. It’s so disappointing that the abortion didn’t stick, snowflake. You’re a waste of a human being. So please, go Rick the Santorum from Jizzsus after you buttfucked69 him bareback!

  85. Your mother shat69 you out during a church service and tried to drown you in the holy water!

  86. You suck out the diarrhea from assholes69 of fat, sweaty, inbred69 rednecks who like to eat at Chick-fil-A’s on a daily basis!

  87. I’m not the one who arrogantly claimed to be a scientist as if being one made me all knowing about biology – you are. You reject basic biology, yet assert I’m “clueless”? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  88. That makes it a human being. Human beings possess fundamental human rights. That prenatal human being possesses the SAME fundamental human rights as his/her mother does.

  89. all your handwaving and quoting that you do just shows you are a pompous arrogant twit who can’t read……and a total waste of time and electrons….you are the weakest link! Good bye! (Blocked).

  90. Human beings WITH FUNCTIONING BRAINS have human rights. No brain, no consciousness, no person, no rights.

  91. “Human beings WITH FUNCTIONING BRAINS have human rights.” —– FALSE. Human – as in human being – begins when a new, unique, distinct and individual human being is formed at fertilization.

    “No brain, no consciousness, no person, no rights.” —– WRONG. Fundamental human rights apply to ALL human beings. Biology shows that we are individual human beings at fertilization.

  92. Quotes are a way of prividing evidence/proof of one’s claims. That you you believe doing so is “pompous” simply shows your willful ignorance and inability to rationally and logically debate. But, I don’t really expect anything more from you.

  93. Says the snowflake crybaby with no arguments or evidence for your claims. Just baseless assertions.

  94. That’s rich, coming from a semiliterate derpwit with no arguments or evidence for his claims.

  95. Nope. I just understand that the individual CHOOSES to act. The woman, despite not wanting a child and knowing the possible outcomes, STILL CHOOSES to engage in the sole behavior that naturally produces a child.

  96. You just tole me to “Please go deep throat a shotgun69”. Sounds like a call to suicide.

  97. Unless you personally are financially supporting the development of artificial-womb technology that will allow you personally to prenatally “adopt,” incubate and birth a fetus and support it to the age of majority, you have no standing to criticize the decisions of any woman who decides not to continue a pregnancy.

  98. That’s amusing coming from a semiliterate, semicoherent dipshidiot69 who can’t give any actual arguments or evidence for his claims. Just whining, insults, and ad hominem attacks. It’s why I haven’t bothered to actually argue with you, and simply chose to insult you.

  99. No, failing to provide arguments and evidence for your assertions is proof that you lost the debate.

  100. I do, and you are doing it. You are projecting your own insecurities and shortcomings onto another person – me.

  101. No, just basing my observations on your posts. This is also proof that you don’t know what projection is, snowflake.

  102. You are simply dismissing something you clearly don’t understand. You are making juvenile and asenine assertions. You show contempt for someone you don’t even know. And you baselessly dismiss arguments without providing ANY rational or logical counter argument. You are the typical useful idiot who merely thinks they are superior, but in reality aren not. You are pathetic.

  103. I HAVE provided ample proof. That you ignore it is YOUR issue and show that YOU have lost the debate – especially when you resort to juvenile, schoolyard tactics.

  104. “That’s amusing coming from a semiliterate, semicoherent dipshidiot69 who can’t give any actual arguments or evidence for his claims.” —– More baseless assertions – DISMISSED.

    “Just whining, insults, and ad hominem attacks.” —– Again, you are clearly describing yourself, since I’ve NOT done ANY of these things.

    “It’s why I haven’t bothered to actually argue with you” —– LOL. You haven’t bothered debating me because you have NOTHING. All you’ve provided is juvenile insults – the telltale sign you’re an idiot who simply wants to sound smart and be relevant. Get back to me when you have ANY rational, logical and adult argument.

  105. “No, just basing my observations on your posts.” —- Then you are seeing things that simply are not there. Most refer to that a delusion.

    Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.

    This describes YOU and your tactics.

  106. Darwinian evolution cannot explain life (for example the highly complex mechanism that a bacterium uses to move)
    Hmm. Yes it has, there’s a very well understood pathway to the flagellar structure, and its “micromotor” – Science continues to evolve, unlike religon

  107. I reacted to the initial article on the basis that this is site of Freethinkers. But it is not. I hoped for some rational debate about the issue. All I got were insults – that are totally irrelevant to the issue. The issue is about human life and how to act and care for it in a carinf environment. You come up with all kinds of ideological nice insulting words. Patriarchy, by the way, was pushed exactly by your ideological ancestors – the Enlightenment philosophers – who claimed that the State is our father and could not allow his children to be taught anything else than suits the state. This is the source of all totalitarian states – the one you apparently believe in to. The state and the left want FASCES – the rule over life and death of human beings. My advice to you is to go read “‘Humanité perdue” by Finkielkraut. Please rename your site: “Anti-humanism”

  108. At the risk of repeating what others have said, since reading comprehension escapes you, 100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men. When I woman is raped she has not chosen to engage in anything and yet still may face an unwanted pregnancy. An underage child may be capable of becoming pregnant and yet still, she has not chosen to engage in anything since she is deemed unable by law to do so.
    And despite your feelings on the matter women are allowed to have sex and, (close your ears) enjoy it. This does not mean they must bear the consequences at any cost. You do not get to choose for them.

  109. “100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men.” —– FALSE.

    “When I woman is raped she has not chosen to engage in anything and yet still may face an unwanted pregnancy.” —– Red Herring. Sorry, but pregnancies resulting from rape account for less than 0.5% of abortions. The remaining 99.5% of abortions (i.e. unwanted pregnancies) are a result of consensual sex. In these cases, the woman is responsible for the results of HER CHOICE.

    “An underage child may be capable of becoming pregnant and yet still, she has not chosen to engage in anything since she is deemed unable by law to do so.” —– Law is irrelevant. One (especially a 16-17 year old) is capable of making a choice, whether “legal” or not.

    “And despite your feelings on the matter women are allowed to have sex and, (close your ears) enjoy it.” —– When have I ever asserted they aren’t?

    “This does not mean they must bear the consequences at any cost.” —– When have I ever asserted “at any cost”? People are responsible for the consequences/results of their choices, and may NOT harm an innocent human being simply to avoid/evade those consequences.

  110. ” I am talking about the unborn life, which – although INSIDE that body – is not simply PART of the body. It is a new life and it is dependent on that body”

    Ok you are correct there its a person with all the rights you and I have and no rights we do not, so fsckng what? Unborn/Born life or anyone or anything else does not have a right to to another persons body or any parts contained there in. It doesn’t fsckng matter if the removal of said unborn person from another persons body will result in its death, the individual with agency and autonomy has every right to do so!

    -One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

  111. Another pigeon strutting around and shitting69 on the chessboard while claiming it won?

  112. Nah – you have him confused with another nut ter. His case involves his sister’s teeth.

  113. Actually, most of those women show far more responsibility than lazy simpleminded moralists like you do. I don’t see YOU taking any responsibility for the consequences of the policies you advocate.

  114. Fetus aren’t “human beings,” they’re tiny clumps of nonsentient human tissue that MIGHT grow into sentient persons, if their bearers choose to let them.

  115. “I reacted to the initial article on the basis that this is site of Freethinkers. But it is not. I hoped for some rational debate about the issue. All I got were insults – that are totally irrelevant to the issue.”

    Oh please! Now you are going to sea lion us with how you merely stumbled upon this site and offered another kinder, gentler viewpoint and us meanies didn’t fawn all over you for your groundbreaking intellectual insights.

    You came out of the gate with an attitude, presuppositions, and an assumption that you were the only adult in the room with an agenda worth following. Now I’m guessing you will slink back to whatever sites confirm your biases and relate how the atheist freethinkers are all fascist baby murderers.

    “The issue is about human life and how to act and care for it in a carinf (sic) environment.”

    No that isn’t what the article is about. The article is about restricting pro-life people who don’t act in the best interests of fetuses or the women who carry them. These people believe that dissent, protest, deception, ignorance, threats, shame and punishment are all pro-active methods to stem the tide of abortions.

    They are wrong.

    We already know how to reduce unwanted pregnancies and their termination through comprehensive sex education, affordable neo-natal care and easy access to contraception. All of these within a safe medical environment where abortion is legally available as another option.

    So stop getting in our way and be part of the solution instead of being a huge problem.

    “You come up with all kinds of ideological nice insulting words. Patriarchy, by the way, was pushed exactly by your ideological ancestors – the Enlightenment philosophers – who claimed that the State is our father and could not allow his children to be taught anything else than suits the state. This is the source of all totalitarian states – the one you apparently believe in to. The state and the left want FASCES – the rule over life and death of human beings.”

    I have no idea what a FASCES is and the patriarchy comment was from a Baptist minister in Alabama, not me. Further, if you’ve been told that the enlightenment philosophers claim what you stated, you have been seriously led astray. Existence is freedom. Every individual has a choice and it is this choice that characterizes each individual’s being. That’s what the enlightenment was about. It emphasized individualism and reason over tradition.

    “My advice to you is to go read “Humanité perdue” by Finkielkraut. Please rename your site: “Anti-humanism””

    My advise to you is to learn some social interaction skills. This isn’t my site and unlike you, I lack the hubris to tell others what to name their blogs.

    Thanks for visiting.

  116. No. People like you CANNOT win, because abortion is indefensible. You reject basic biology in order to rationalize and defend your position. NONE of your arguments are rational or logical. That you think you won the debate is simply you crapping all over the chess board, knocking over all of the pieces and declaring victory as you fly away.

  117. I’ve already proven you wrong on that. Several times. What is indefensible is pretending that women don’t have more rights to their own body than any other entity on this planet. You reject basic biology in order to try and rationalize your position, and fail at doing so. NONE of your arguments are rational or logical once the facts are understood. That you think you won the debate is simply you pissing all over the board, scattering the pieces and declaring victory as you roll around in your urine.

  118. I know who that troll is now. He’s one of the more arrogant kkkrist-stains which is why I blocked him awhile back.

  119. Someone else did the same thing recently. They pretended to have stumbled across the blog via Google, led with insults right off the bat, and then complained about the welcome they received. How they can’t know how transparent they are is beyond me.

    Good response btw.

  120. “I’ve already proven you wrong on that” —– Again, ONLY in your imagination.

    “What is indefensible is pretending that women don’t have more rights to their own body than any other entity on this planet.” —– You seem confused. NOBODY is asserting that one has rights over the body of another. The right to self autonomy is NOT absolute. One may NOT harm an innocent human being when exercising that right. The human being growing inside the woman is there and dependent through no fault of his/her own – the woman and her partner are COMPLETELY at fault. They bear sole responsibility for the duty of care owed to that human being.

    “You reject basic biology in order to try and rationalize your position” —– LOL. What basic biology have I supposedly rejected? Please be specific.

    “NONE of your arguments are rational or logical once the facts are understood.” —– So-called “facts” as you see them in your pretend world aren’t actually facts in the real world.

    “That you think you won the debate is simply you pissing all over the board, scattering the pieces and declaring victory as you roll around in your urine.” —- Describing yourself again, eh?

  121. That reminds me of a joke: “How do you circumcise a redneck? You kick his sister in the jaw!”

  122. Boo-hoo-hoo, the poor dear! Someone give him a hankie while playing the world’s smallest violin! /s

  123. Soggy Bottom is gone on Progressive Secular Humanist and a troll named Joe popped up in hardly no time. It’s the blog about nothing fails like prayer I think. He’s a proselytizing derpwitted PITA.

  124. Firstly – I am not an American or a British person. I am African. Secondly: I am not Evangelical or Catholic, I am old liberal in the Lockean sense. Thirdly, I did not know about the site – the article was posted on Facebook and I read it and decided to participate in a hopefully rational discussion about the perceived “fanaticism”. Fourthly, unlike you, I do not make assumptions about the other person – I have not assumed that you are atheist even though you have attacked my supposed “cult”. Fifthly, you can shift the issue the way you want – the article wants to characterise people who offer alternatives near abortion facilities as “fanatics” – I reacted to that. In fact, I believe that if the abortion facility’s management are not fanatic about their way, they may even allow the alternatives space within their facilities to offer the alternative. Number six: the pretense is that you are helping the poor among women – well: the cheapest ways would be to be on the streets and in schools and poor neighborhoods (door to door) and try to strengthen prevention of pregnancy, and try to strengthen family life and responsible FATHERhood. And no – I am not just going to run away from a discussion – in spite of your absolute anti-humanist haughtiness. Also, I believe that within the Capitalist-Marxist materialist paradigm, material greed counts – and the way argue makes me think that you are so afraid that if those babies are born alive, it will cost you taxes, because you want the state to take responsibility for welfare and well-being.Learn one thing from your own collective mysticism – the social is not the state: it is you and me. Also: you are right into the dialectical way of thinking so popular among right wingers and left wingers – thus the moment one tries to discuss a matter from a different point of view, you put up some mental Berlin wall and begin to blame all and sundry because the wall classifies them as Below you and and worthy to blame. I am still to see any argument from you – all I have seen is haughtiness and insult

  125. And following Joe is a fellow kkkultist – Doug B – who apparently found Jizzus while incarcerated for sexual69 assault.

  126. That reminds me of one of my parents friends, who found Jizzsus in prison. He acted all sanctimonious towards me because I wasn’t religious, and I was like, “You act all high and mighty for a guy who found Jizzsus because you got in trouble for meth.”

  127. I know. Crybaby Lee had left me a bunch of whiny and nonsensical posts, like the ones where he’s whining that I didn’t define “define.”

  128. Jeez, he’s a persistent and malingering troll, isn’t he? He just doesn’t give up, regardless of who or what is said to him. He’s like a cockroach.

  129. He was joined by a kkkrist-stain named Doug Bristow who has an interesting history in Montana.

  130. tl;dr, you’re a whiny Christard with no argument or evidence for your assertions who’s butthurt69 that we have the nerve to disagree with you.

  131. The “OH just shut up” is a response to hearing the same canard from hapless trolls ad nauseam.

  132. But I’m guessing that he’s acting all high and mighty, right? Preaching about morality and pretending to be self-righteous?

  133. I gave you an excellent argument and you ignored it. I think you can also take some blame for haughtiness and insults. Know thy self.

  134. Have you ever heard of a site/blog called The Slowly Boiled Frog? I hadn’t until I checked the comment history of an atheist who was sparring quite effectively with the derpwits69 who briefly infested the PSH blog about the National Day of Prayer.
    I made one comment to him, Ben in Oakland, and now I’ve drawn the ire of some insecure religious bigots.

  135. Never heard of it. Is it a good website? I’m not sure if I posted this to you or not:

    http://jesusneverexisted.com/
    I discovered it when someone up voted a comment I made a year ago, and I was going through the thread, and someone (it might have Ben in Oakland, in fact) mentioned it. So I went to it and bookmarked it because it looked like a good resource.

  136. I don’t know if it’s a good site or not. I only went there to let Ben know the religiot was spam posting babble scripture on PSH. At a glance, it appeared to be a slugfest between religiots and sane people. No thanks – a couple of kkkrist-stains mase the usual derprage comments to me. Pathetic bigoted wankers69 really.

    I’ll check that link out sometime.

  137. Joe and Doug are hit and run posters of derprage. Don’t expect a response. You can find them on Progressive Secular Humanist about the National Day of Prayer.

  138. I’ve heard Ken Humpheys, creator of Jesus Never Existed, speak several times at meetings in the UK. He’s brilliant, especially at sending fundies off with their tails between their legs and on the verge of tears.

  139. No Lauren, the REAL fun comprises a letter of complaint received today from Alliance Defending Freedom saying “Although Mr. Kiska worked for us many years ago, he hasn’t been employed by ADF for a very long time. Can you please ensure that the posts are corrected?”

    Did I pluck the reference to ADF (now removed) from my a***? No. I got it from the ADF website: http://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/alliance-alert-details/about-roger-kiska and two other sources.

  140. You should ONLY respond to him, calling him “Allah ‘Akbar!”, since that is *exactly* how that translates to Arabic! ha! 😉

  141. Someone removed them — probably because of the Arabic — which is an EXACT translation of his username. *sigh*

  142. Go to Google Translate and view his username in Arabic, since the filter isn’t permitting Arabic here, apparently.

  143. I had a comment removed that as best I can figure was because of a four-letter word for an alcoholic beverage.

    Ree-dick-yu-lus.

  144. Yup. Just because certain types of radical terrorists use the phrase, still doesn’t mean that the *language* or the *phrase* itself is “evil”.

    Sheesh, I know Lebanese Christians who speak Arabic and say the SAME phrase, but referring to Jesus!!

  145. I checked that and also learned a couple of other Arabic phrases for “God be with you” and “Peace be upon you.”

  146. You’re doing a stellar job of facing off with the hateful bigots69 on The Slowly Boiled Frog.

  147. You call killing babies a human right, and you have the audacity to call yourself moral! You are a self-righteous devil worshiper, and people like you should be grateful that God-fearing folks allow you to live in the same country as them.

  148. So you’re saying a non-sentient clump of cells has more rights than an adult, thinking woman. Of course, forced-birthers usually think of the woman involved as the “mobile incubator”.

  149. Atheists can’t believe in rights. To appeal to rights is to make a claim of a transcendent morality binding upon all, which is antithetical to atheism. Therefore, you can either admit that you’re wrong to believe that God does not exist, or you can admit that you have no rights Christians are bound to respect. Either way, you can’t criticize us for believing that we’re the only ones with an agenda worth having.

  150. No, I’m saying they have equal rights, but if someone’s rights must yield (they don’t, because real rights never come into conflict) then the strong must yield to the weak.

  151. No, we’re saying that a woman has the right to get rid of a parasite. Just because you think that’s icky doesn’t mean that your opinions are worth any more than the woman involved. So take your Bible-thumping and remember that it’s OUR country as well. Religion does not have a constitutionally privileged place in MY country and if you don’t like that it’s your problem, not mine.

  152. “I don’t accept her decision…”

    HER decision. Not yours, hers. I cannot imagine that you would accept her rights to control your body and your life, so why should she accept yours? I’m not telling you what to do, I’m offering you a solution whereby you could reach the people who do want your input, without harassing the people who do not.

  153. Not.
    A.
    Baby.

    The naïve or disingenuous conflation of a fetus with a human being, and the position that it should have more rights than an undeniable human woman, is entirely a religious position. As such, it is optional, like all religion. You don’t want abortion, don’t have one. This is not a theocracy, as specifically stated in our constitution.

  154. “You call killing babies a human right, and you have the audacity to call yourself moral!”
    They aren’t “babies” and they’re not being “killed,” snowflake. Those are assertions without evidence. And if you want to talk about people who call themselves “moral,” while acting in the EXACT OPPOSITE manner, then look no further than Christianity, a murderous, genocidal cult of kiddie diddlers who have directly and indirectly murdered well in excess of 130,000,000 people, including pregnant women, babies, and children. You, as a Christian, are in ABSOLUTELY no position to talk about morality, nor claim that I’m immoral. I’m not the one who worships a mass murdering psychopath who murdered 20,000,000,+ people in the Bible, you do. Your God and his followers CERTAINLY had no problem with committing murder, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, with EXPLICIT references to murdering pregnant women, babies, and children. Again, you’re in no position to talk about “morality.” God and the Bible aren’t pro-life by any stretch of the imagination.

    “You are a self-righteous devil worshiper,”
    I don’t worship Satan, because Satan is an imaginary boogeyman feared by childish believers who are afraid of reality. Prove that your God exists, is the One True God, that Satan exists, and that your holy book/religion is true and correct. Oh, and you can’t use the Bible.

    “and people like you should be grateful that God-fearing folks allow you to live in the same country as them.”
    “God-fearing folks” are some of the most evil, immoral, callous, uncaring monsters on the planet. Like the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of mass shootings and terrorist attacks in America are committed by white conservative Christians. Why should I listen to a bunch of bloodthirsty genocidal bastards69? I’m also going to note that the Founding Fathers and the First Amendment disagree with your assertions, lies, and whining. The Founding Fathers EXPLICITLY stated that America is NOT a Christian nation, nor is it based on Judeo-Christian values. And the First Amendment says freedom OF religion, and freedom FROM religion. So it doesn’t matter what the “god-fearing folks” believe, if you’re not a Christian, then you don’t have to obey the rules of their religion. If believers don’t want to have abortions, then fine, but they don’t have the right to tell others that they can’t based on THEIR religious beliefs. In fact, most people here in America who get abortions are Christians. Non-believers and the LGBTQ are under ABSOLUTELY no obligation to follow or conform to your religious beliefs, period. Fuck69 you, next case, end of report!

  155. So it’s okay when the woman doesn’t give her consent or is incapable of giving consent to have sex? If you can justify one abortion where do you draw the line? My line is directly between the woman and her doctor and nowhere else. Her choice, not yours.

  156. God is the Author of Life, so for Him to take life is merely demanding back what is already His. There is no freedom from religion, there is only state neutrality toward religion. We violate no one’s rights by demanding that abortion be treated as murder, for it is murder. The rights of those guilty of abortion are not violated even if we condemn them to death. And yes, you are a devil worshiper, because you uphold his sacrifice of abortion. That you don’t believe in the devil makes no difference, you still worship him by endorsing abortion.

  157. “God is the Author of Life, so for Him to take life is merely demanding back what is already His.”
    No, that’s just a weak, bullshit69 excuse that believers invoke whenever God is committing horrific, immoral atrocities. This is nothing more than special pleading that basically boils down to “This is different because reasons!” Believers might buy that nonsense, but we don’t. We reject it entirely. That’s in addition to the fact that you can’t even show that your God exists, making your arguments worthless.

    “There is no freedom from religion, there is only state neutrality toward religion.”
    The Founding Fathers, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court disagree with your baseless assertions and lies, snowflake. They EXPLICITLY stated the EXACT OPPOSITE of what your saying, liar.

    “We violate no one’s rights by demanding that abortion be treated as murder, for it is murder.”
    That’s a lie, kkkunt69. You’re trying to dictate the lives of others and tell them what they can and cannot do based purely on your religious beliefs, not science, reality, and facts. Abortion isn’t murder, that’s an assertion. That makes it illegal and unconstitutional, no matter how much you say otherwise. And unfortunately for you, the Bible is completely silent on condemning abortion, and at no point does it ever say or imply that abortion is murder or a sin. In fact, the Bible itself says otherwise and contradicts the positions of pro-lifers entirely. The “pro-life/anti-abortion” stance has ABSOLUTELY no biblical basis whatsoever. I also have to note that the Bible states MULTIPLE TIMES, to obey earthly laws and authorities. By fighting against laws that allow abortion, LGBTQ rights/marriage equality, anti-discrimination laws, comprehensive sexual69 education/birth control, trying to push religion and creationism in schools, etc, they’re violating the Bible.

    “The rights of those guilty of abortion are not violated even if we condemn them to death.”
    Uh, yes, they are. Murdering people because they don’t conform to your religious beliefs, beliefs that they might not share or follow, is MOST DEFINITELY a violation of their rights, the Constitution, and any person with a decent and intact moral compass would know that. This is why Christians are responsibility for NUMEROUS & MULTIPLE genocides, because of their delusions of morality. Again, you have no right to talk about “morality.”

    “And yes, you are a devil worshiper, because you uphold his sacrifice of abortion.”
    1. No, I can’t worship something that I don’t believe is real and doesn’t exist.
    2. This is a long refuted and debunked strawman argument, ad hominem attack, and insult from arrogant, crybaby Christians who can’t fathom that not everyone believes in and worships their God, so they make shit69 up to justify it.
    3. This is a weak distraction from the fact that you can’t even show that your God exists, nor can you show that the Bible is true and correct.
    4. This is also a distraction from the fact that you have no biblical basis to oppose abortion, and you KNOW IT.
    5. Since God and the Bible not only fail to condemn abortion, but have no problem with it, you can’t claim that their sacrifices to Satan.

    “That you don’t believe in the devil makes no difference, you still worship him by endorsing abortion.”
    Yes, it DOES make a difference. Just because Christians are too arrogant, stupid, and willfully ignorant to grasp the fact that not everyone believes in and worships their God, or no God at all, DOES NOT MAKE THEM SATAN WORSHIPPERS! That’s just a bullshit69 excuse and insult that Christians use so they can dismiss anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs without actually having to address or think about it. It’s also a weak attempt at dodging the burden of proof because they have nothing to support their God claims. I’ve already addressed the part about abortion and why it isn’t satanic or a sacrifice.

  158. Citation needed for the claim that God and the Bible hate and condemn abortion. Please cite the verses that EXPLICITLY & SPECIFICALLY condemns abortion and says that it’s murder and a sin. Not verses that you INTERPRET as condemning abortion, CLEAR & UNAMBIGUOUS condemnation. If these verses exist, then you surely would know and share them. So where are they? The burden if proof is on you. But you won’t find any because they don’t exist. I’m waiting, fuckwit69.

  159. 1. “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
    ~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

    2. “Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
    ~Founding Father George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792

    3. “We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
    ~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

    4. “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
    ~John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788

    5. “The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
    ~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

  160. 6. “Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
    ~Founding Father John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)

    7. “We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.”
    ~Founding FatherJohn Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785

    8. “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
    ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

    9. “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
    ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

    10. “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
    ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

    11. “I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
    ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799

  161. 17. “Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.”
    ~Founding Father James Madison, letter, 1822

    18. “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”
    ~Founding Father James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical
    Endowments

    19. “It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin. Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties.”
    ~Founding Father James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817

    20. “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
    ~Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

    21. “Manufacturers, who listening to the powerful invitations of a better price for their fabrics, or their labor, of greater cheapness of provisions and raw materials, of an exemption from the chief part of the taxes burdens and restraints, which they endure in the old world, of greater personal independence and consequence, under the operation of a more equal government, and of what is far more precious than mere religious toleration–a perfect equality of religious privileges; would probably flock from Europe to the United States to pursue their own trades or professions, if they were once made sensible of the advantages they would enjoy, and were inspired with an assurance of encouragement and employment, will, with difficulty, be induced to transplant themselves, with a view to becoming cultivators of the land.”
    ~Founding Father Alexander Hamilton: Report on the Subject of Manufacturers December 5,
    1791

  162. 22. “In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind.”
    ~Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (1771)

    23. “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love, and charity towards each other.”
    ~Founding Father George Mason, Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776

    24. “It is contrary to the principles of reason and justice that any should be compelled to contribute to the maintenance of a church with which their consciences will not permit them to join, and from which they can derive no benefit; for remedy whereof, and that equal liberty as well religious as civil, may be universally extended to all the good people of this commonwealth.”
    ~Founding Father George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

    25. “A man of abilities and character, of any sect whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under the United States. I am a friend to a variety of sects, because they keep one another in order. How many different sects are we composed of throughout the United States? How many different sects will be in congress? We cannot enumerate the sects that may be in congress. And there are so many now in the United States that they will prevent the establishment of any one sect in prejudice to the rest, and will forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty. If such an attempt be made, will not the alarm be sounded throughout America? If congress be as wicked as we are foretold they will, they would not run the risk of exciting the resentment of all, or most of the religious sects in America.”
    ~Founding Father Edmund Randolph, address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June
    10, 1788

    26. “I never liked the Hierarchy of the Church — an equality in the teacher of Religion, and a dependence on the people, are republican sentiments — but if the Clergy combine, they will have their influence on Government”
    ~Founding Father Rufus King, Rufus King: American Federalist, pp. 56-57

  163. Atheism is merely a statement that there is no empirical evidence of a God or gods therefore there is no reason to think they exist. There is no morality or rights element to that – transcendent or otherwise.

    Further, pragmatism assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application. When one assesses the practical application of a God or gods on society, one finds that any God or gods are woefully absent and instead are reliant on self-professed prophets or agents who claim to know the mind of their God or gods.

    So the question I ask myself is; why should any human with critical thinking skills automatically accept the word, morals, or to be honest, anything from those who lack the basic ability to formulate an argument based upon empirical evidence? And if you believe you theists have done a great job with humanity, and by doing so, only you get to decide who gets to sit at the adult table – I’m happy to tell you that you are in for a rough ride from here on out.

    There is no doubt ya’ll have an agenda, and my response to that is, please stop.

  164. 27. A general toleration of Religion appears to me the best means of peopling our country… The free exercise of religion hath stocked the Northern part of the continent with inhabitants; and altho’ Europe hath in great measure adopted a more moderate policy, yet the profession of Protestantism is extremely inconvenient in many places there. A Calvinist, a Lutheran, or Quaker, who hath felt these inconveniences in Europe, sails not to Virginia, where they are felt perhaps in a (greater degree).”
    ~Patrick Henry, observing that immigrants flock to places where there is no established religion, Religious Tolerance, 1766

    28. “No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
    ~Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731

    29. “Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression.”
    ~Founding Father Oliver Wolcott, Connecticut Ratifying Convention, 9 January 1788

    30. “Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for information, have objected against that clause in the constitution which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They have been afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to secure to you the important right of religious
    liberty. We are almost the only people in the world, who have a full enjoyment of this important right of human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or in other words, he is not subject to persecution. But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is, far different. Systems of religious error have been adopted, in times of ignorance. It has been the interest of tyrannical kings, popes, and prelates, to maintain these errors. When the clouds of ignorance began to vanish, and the people grew more enlightened, there was no other way to keep them in error, but to prohibit their altering their religious opinions by severe persecuting laws. In this way persecution became general throughout Europe.”
    ~Founding Father Oliver Ellsworth, Philip B Kurland and Ralph Lerner (eds.), The Founder’s Constitution, University of Chicago Press, 1987, Vol. 4, p.
    638

    31. “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”
    ~Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791

    32. “God has appointed two kinds of government in the world, which are distinct in their nature, and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical government.”
    ~Founding Father Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773

    33. “Congress has no power to make any religious establishments.”
    ~Founding Father Roger Sherman, Congress, August 19, 1789

    34. “The American states have gone far in assisting the progress of truth; but they have stopped short of perfection. They ought to have given every honest citizen an equal right to enjoy his religion and an equal title to all civil emoluments, without obliging him to tell his religion. Every interference of the civil power in regulating opinion, is an impious attempt to take the business of the Deity out of his own hands; and every preference given to any religious denomination, is so far slavery and bigotry.”
    ~Founding Father Noah Webster, calling for no religious tests to serve in public office, Sketches of American Policy, 1785

    35. “The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion.”
    ~Founding Father Charles Pinckney, Constitutional Convention, 1787

  165. We violate no one’s rights by demanding that abortion be treated as murder, for it is murder.

    Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another, so since abortions are lawful, abortions are not murder.

    That you don’t believe in the devil makes no difference, you still worship him by endorsing abortion.

    By the same token, if you believe in the Abrahamic god, you condone slavery, because that god condones slavery.

  166. I see. You have no intention of engaging in honest discussion. Don’t pretend to disparage totalitarianism when what you really mean is “MY totalitarianism is good, yours is bad.”

    Blocked.

  167. And if you don’t like me calling you a child-fucking69 Christian scumbag, that’s your problem, not mine

  168. Since the majority of women who get abortions identify as religious, that would mean they worship your imaginary enemy, you bumbling troll.

  169. This m0r0n was on a blog an hour ago calling the virus “Communist.” I’ll give you one guess who this hapless, kiddy-diddler, inept troll worships!

  170. They aren’t people or human beings, so they have no rights. And their “rights” do not supersede the rights of the mother. Women are under no obligation to get pregnant, carry them to term, then give birth. Period.

  171. “Some people aren’t people”-Christianity over the past 2,000+ years. It would explain all the examples of Christians committing mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, which Christians have continued to do right up until today.

  172. The kind that martyrbates69 to images of the quasi-literate orange shitgibbon69 from his Cheeto-stained beanbag chair.

  173. Nope, they don’t have “equal rights” because a Z/E/F isn’t a human being, nor do they rights. The mother is the one with rights, and she doesn’t have to give birth if she doesn’t want to.

  174. Nope. They worship your Imaginary Sky Fairy, who enjoyed murdering pregnant women, babies, and children, because your God is a murderous, genocidal psychopath who hates babies and the unborn. Maybe you should read the Bible first and stop embarrassing yourself. Dumb kkkuntsicle69

  175. You cannot worship the God of the Bible while also offering sacrifice to demons. That is what it means when the Bible says, “You shall have no other gods before Me,” and “This people honors Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.”

  176. Nope. They worship your Imaginary Sky Fairy, who enjoyed murdering69 pregnant women, babies, and children, because your God is a murderous69, genocidal psychopath who hates babies and the unborn. Maybe you should read the Bible first and stop embarrassing yourself. Dumb69 kkkuntsicle69.

  177. Except that abortion isn’t condemned in the Bible, nor does God have a problem with it. Therefore, your argument is meaningless. You CAN be a Christian and get & support abortions. Again, please cite the verses that ALLEGEDLY condemn abortion, or fuck69 of and die.

  178. This is about all we can expect from a pathetic, woman-hating69 womb-sniffer with a little “member.”

  179. A cell without a nervous system, without any organs whatsoever and without sentience, is not even *remotely* like a fetus or a baby.

    Wake Up.

  180. Your strength, Mr. Man, doesn’t give you the right to override a woman’s personal medical autonomy.

    May I dictate the conditions of your Vasectomy now, sir?

  181. How very “Christian” of you…
    Jesus said to call people names and be a jerk for the Kingdom, right?

    /#SadFundie

  182. Ummm, a medical procedure is not a “sacrifice to demons”.

    Do you hate medicine?
    Got enough eels for your next blood-letting, Andrew?

  183. There is no low for these woman-hating69 womb-sniffers. If they’ll bomb clinics and murder69 in cold blood, inspecting used feminine hygiene products isn’t inconceivable for them to do.

  184. Except for the fact that kkkrist-stain warrior said cat-lickers aren’t True Christians…

  185. Your sky pappy sits and watches your kind rape69 children.

    I notice you don’t want a piece of Michael, you cowardly piece of merde.

  186. He got off his sibling long enough to adjust the satellite dish hooked up to his house on wheels, got more methed up, and…he’s back!

  187. He’s too much of a coward to run his cockholster69 to you. Typical misogynistic fundie has to lift himself up by demeaning women.

  188. Anybody can worship whoever and whatever they want to and there’s not a goddamn69 thing you can do about it.

    Womb-sniffing scum69.

  189. Your God, if he exists, is the most evil being in existence. He murdered everyone on the planet during a temper tantrum because they were imperfect, even though that was God’s fault in the first place. That’s fucking69 evil, I don’t care what you say. Hell, the Bible even has God EXPLICITLY & SPECIFICALLY stating that he created evil! (Isaiah 45:7) Since God created evil and Satan, all the blame can be laid at the feet of your God, per the Bible.

  190. A non-sentient clump of cells has ZERO rights. The woman is the only one who has any say in whether or not she gets an abortion. Misogynist forced-birthers like you can express your opinions but nobody is required to pay any attention to those opinions.

  191. You have no arguments or evidence for your claims, snowflake. That’s why you responded like this. Eat penguin shit69 you ass-spelunker!

  192. Funny how they ignore what they cannot answer without looking like the liars and hypocrites they’ve already proven themselves to be.

  193. Where’s the scripture that specifically condemns abortions, baby-killing69 pederast2?

  194. Perhaps the misogynistic smegma2 would like to explain his presence on a secular blog. He admitted it was his kind killing de “BA-BEEEZZZ” so let’s see a link to a site where he rebukes his sisters in kkkrist.

  195. So, you approve of tax increases to help poor mothers get the essential services they need for their children? You willing to pay more for WIC programs? You support health care for indigent children? Or are you a Republican and “something something personal responsibility, not my problem once it’s born”?

    Don’t answer that. I already know.

  196. HahahahahahahahahahaHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

    You serious, bro? Your god drowned the entire world, fetuses and all, because he was grumpy! Satan killed ten people total. Your whiny, petulant man-child of a “Gawd” is truly pathetic!

    And no, I don’t fear your “Gawd”. All I have to do is sit in my car; seems he has problems with iron…

  197. You admitted it’s your kind getting the majority of abortions2…and yet, here you are on a secular blog.
    Provide a link to a site where you chastise your kind. I won’t hold my breath waiting for one because we all know how vicious your kind is when you chastise one another – even though your god commands you to – it’s in your Big Book of Bee Ess.
    No, you’d rather sit behind your keyboard pretending to know the lives of strangers on the internet, calling them vile names and accusing them of what your kind does – and YOU pretend to have the moral high ground. There is nothing admirable about a self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou hypocrite – YOU.

  198. Nope, the Fifth Commandment doesn’t apply. The Bible EXPLICITLY states, multiple times, that life starts at first breath, not conception (Gen 2:7, Psalms 33:6, Ezekiel 37:9-10, 13-14, Job 34:14-15, Isaiah 42:5). And the Test of the Faithful Wife (Numbers 5:11-31) is CLEARLY about performing an abortion, but at NO POINT is it ever condemned or referred to as murder or a sin. And finally, there are NUMEROUS verses where God and His followers, with God’s blessing and permission, commit mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, with EXPLICIT references to murdering pregnant women, babies, and children (Psalms 137:9, 2 Kings 2:23-24, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Exodus 12:29-30, Hosea 9:11-16, Joshua 6:21, Joshua 6:17, 1 Samuel 15-35, Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Numbers 31:17-18, Jeremiah 19:9, Isaiah, 13:16, Exodus 21:22-25, Isaiah 13:15-18, Deuteronomy 13:13-18, Jeremiah 50:21-22, 1 Kings 14:9-16, 2 Kings 15:16, Gen 6:5-7, Deuteronomy 7:2). The Bible doesn’t condemn abortion, nor does it claim that it’s murder or a sin. In fact, it says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you’re asserting. God and the Bible aren’t pro-life by any stretch of the imagination, and the pro-life position has no biblical basis whatsoever, period. Fuck69 you, next case, end of report! God is the greatest abortionist of them all.

  199. The world was “depraved” because your God made it that way (Isaiah 45:7). Then your God turns around and punishes them for being EXACTLY HOW HE CREATED THEM! And your God is ALLEGEDLY omniscient, meaning that he knew that the world would be depraved, evil, and corrupted beforehand, but decided to create it anyway. This also contradicts the assertion that God is completely perfect and incapable of making mistakes. If that were true, then he wouldn’t have had to drown the planet during a hissy fit to try and make up for His incompetent and shoddy craftsmanship. He blames humanity for His fuck69-ups instead of taking responsibility for Himself.

  200. Your god made flawed human beings and then punished them for his mistake.

    “You hate God because He judges evil…”

    That’s the same as saying someone hates a character in a book. It’s absurd and illogical.

    “…because you yourself are evil and don’t want to be judged.”

    Once again, you sit behind your keyboard and pretend to know the lives of strangers on the internet, ascribing vague and unknown acts to be you do not know personally. All you know is they don’t share your beliefs. That isn’t the act of a righteous person.

  201. No, son. I specifically asked for the scripture to back up your claim that your god is against abortion. You see, I knew you couldn’t because it’s not in the bible; however, there is scripture that instructs you to shake the dust off your feet. You are disobeying by being here.

    Now. What are you doing personally to reduce abortion and pedophilia69 in your demographic?

  202. Wonderful! Provide proof of you personally paying for the welfare of children in need.

    As for deadbeat dads, you’re quite naive if you think that’s the only scenario in which a woman would seek to have an abortion.

    Now. What are you personally doing to reduce abortion and pedophilia2 in your demographic?

  203. Thank you for taking the time to try and educate an obtuse xtian. I’m sure it will be a waste of time because he isn’t interested in learning anything that would upset his cognitive dissonance and force him to see the god he worships and lies for is a genocidal, homicidal maniac.

  204. Andrew has joined us here believing he has the right to stop women from making decisions about their own body. Because…Jesus or something.

  205. I’m interested in what you might have to say to Andrew. He showed up here and accused us all of being evil god-haters.

  206. There are no gods nor devils in the real world – that you believe in them makes no difference. You fundies run a tax-exempt, fact-exempt, legal criminal enterprise and live in a make-believe world with imaginary friends and enemies. As one person so aptly put it, you are vectors of mental disease.

  207. It truly is weak if it needs a puny, woman-hating, womb-sniffing man-child to argue its existence.

  208. Provide proof of what you personally are doing to reduce abortion and pedophilia2 in your demographic.

  209. “I do not give charity for show.”

    You bragged about what you allegedly do. Any kind of proof will do.

  210. You asked for specifics and I gave it. Now, I will speak to you in generalities. Christ established the Church on Peter and the Apostles, and to them, He said, “Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven,” therefore, because the Church judges abortion to be murder, so it is.

  211. I don’t know how everything started and do not claim to know. You don’t know what I believe so any assumption on your part is unfounded.

  212. You did not provide specifics nor did you provide proof. I have no reason to believe anything coming from a misogynistic, womb-sniffing, insecure man-child who attacks people he doesn’t know.

    I don’t give a fiddler’s fart2 what your institution of pedophiles2 judges. Tend to the weeds in your own garden, Christian.

  213. Predictably, he provided one of the commandments and calls that proof because he’s a cognitively dissonant mental midget who hates women.

  214. “Anyway, we now know blood to be too valuable to be discarded like that.”

    No thanks to the ignorant goatherders who authored the Big Book of Bee Ess. Society would be much further advanced if it wasn’t for your kind committing unspeakable acts of the torture and murder of rational thinking people.

  215. What it means, not what it says, nor what actually happened. If you knew something more beyond what is stated there, you’d know those other gods were deities worshipped alongside Yahweh, as Bhaal, El, or Asherah and not demons.

  216. What about the killings of people as the Amalekites, up to children, sucklings, and their animals then?. Are you gonna justify it claiming they were demons?

    Of course that what is described in the Book of Joshua has little, if any, archeological evidence as other parts of the OT as especially Exodus is something you will ignore.

  217. “And for all your talk about merely stating facts, you gratuitously direct profanities at me, testifying that you hate(_) me without cause.”

    You have to admire the spectacle some people make of themselves. They go to a blog where the opinions are opposite of their own, wearing a sandwich board that reads “Kick me.” They then proceed to behave colossally offensively, get kicked, and then whine about it. A competent mental health professional would have a field day with such an individual.