Categories
Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice

Respect, But Disrespected? Or Disrespect, with Respect. Your choice?

For the past few months I have been carrying on a conversation with a self-avowed proponent of abortion laws. He calls himself a Pro-Lifer. We are supposed to be looking for common ground, but as yet we have not found much, if any. While I may have mentioned these conversations in a few comments on various blogs, I have not turned them into a post yet, as I sometimes do. But my conversation partner thought it was time for him to do so. Then he invited me to read, and comment. So I am passing his invitation on to you.

It took me a lot of thought to decide on the proper title for this post, and you may or may not wonder at its intent. Basically, I tried to show my confusion with what he has written. If you are willing to try to read his take on our conversation — it is a lenghty one, but you can read however much you like, I don’t know if he expects anyone to read the whole thing in one sitting — the link is below. Enjoy.

By rawgod

A man with a lot of strange experiences in my life. Haven't traveled that much per se, but have lived in a lot of different areas. English is the only language I have mastered, and the older I get, the more of it I lose. Seniorhood gives me more time to self-reflect, but since time seems to go much faster, it feels like I don't have as much time for living as my younger selves did. I believe in spiritual atheism and responsible anarchy. These do not have to be oxymorons. Imagination is an incredible tool. I can imagine a lot of things.

39 replies on “Respect, But Disrespected? Or Disrespect, with Respect. Your choice?”

Reblogged this on A New Spirituality and commented:

I know in the past I have said I would stop re-blogging my posts from Ideas From Outside The Boxes here, or vice versa, but of late all my original writing has landed on Ideas. The posts about Ginny really belong on neither, but I don’t want to start yet another blog, though I may if she starts getting her own readership. So, for now, here they will stay. But other posts, such as this one, just beg to be given as wide a readrrship as possible. So, while I do apologize to readers of both blogs for the repitition, I hope you will forgive me my lack of focus. Someday I do hope to separate the blogs again, but of late I have been more inclined to post on political and social issues than spiritual thoughts. The state of the world at present calls for me to take part in Earthly matters. If we have nowhere safe to live, we will not have time for our spirits. Again, I spologize, for whatever it is worth.

Like

I’m reading the post/ Yes, it is long (!) and I will most likely read it in spurts.

So far I agree with the writer who is defending abortion. The “arguments” offered by the blogger are nothing new and, for me, simply do not hold water. However, s/he did say something that I found rather intriguing … in a casual relationship, if the male who provided the sperm wanted to “take over” the child at birth, then perhaps an abortion could be avoided. But of course, how many men would ever consider this? Pregnancies that result from these types of relationships generally mean the male is long gone.

I shall keep reading as time and circumstances permit and perhaps offer more feedback.

Like

I am the huckleberry who is defending life. A man in a casual relationship who has his jollies, leaves the woman pregnant and then moves on is a scumbag in my opinion. I am not sure what you think about this situation: this is normal behavior, it can’t be controlled, is just the way things are, or maybe you are disgusted by it too. In any case, you seem to be saying if a child’s dad is irresponsible, the child’s life can legitimately be ended. The child doesn’t get a chance to make a better life of it for himself/herself. Your dad is a scumbag and we think your life might be hard, so we are going to decide your life is not worth living. Sorry. That’s a pretty dim view of life.

Also, I include the stats in my post. A large number of abortions occur in much better situations than this, including for married couples or women who have already had children. You defend abortion for the worst situations, but do you still defend it when the conditions are much more favorable to a good outcome. Is it still the woman’s right to choose in these instances as well?

Like

Although I will continue reading your “thesis,” bottom line for me is and always will be that abortion should ALWAYS be a woman’s choice.

The reason I pointed out the suggestion related to the father taking over so the woman would not have to abort is because men RARELY assume any kind of responsibility in unwanted pregnancies. Yet many (most?) take a holier-than-thou approach and assume their opinion/position on the matter is superior to the woman’s.

Like

Ahhh yes. I finished reading and, as I expected, your closing line … Praise be Jesus Christ now and forever.… tells the story far better than any opinion, statements, or article references that you provided.

Like

Stats can be made to show anything the statistician wants them to show. Unless I have my people mixed up, you said you are a mathematician of some kind. So you know stats lie. Truth depends of what the seeker wants to believe.
As far as “free love,” if I may call it that, which is what we called it in the 60s, no, I have no problem with casual sex. As I told you before, sexual relations are very important to a persons mental health. Single people have as much right to have sexual relations as married people. It also helps keep the rape stats lower, although they probably show as many married rapists as they do single rapists, so marriage is not a factor in that.
You still talk about a fetus as if it is already a person, albeit a child. I grant you it may be a blob of living protoplasm, but it is not a person. The mother’s body is just as liable to reject the blob as it is to carry it to term. It is a poterntial person, but it is NOT YET a person. It has no rights to anything.

Liked by 1 person

The debate on abortion, I thinks, circles itself too much around, religion, and, after the beliefs of killing gets taken out, then, it becomes, simpler, we can then, focus, on the matter of what’s actually, good for the mother, after all, if a woman gives birth to an unwanted baby, what sort of a life would this baby have, even if, s/he gets adopted by a good family? It’s all on the readiness, of the woman carrying a fetus, if she is, willing and ready to, provide the need love, care, to the child, I think, and, pro-life IS, pro-choice, because, the woman is choosing, activy, to carry a fetus full-term and birth it out.

Liked by 1 person

Let’s take religion out of the discussion since this is problematic for you.

You say “abortion should ALWAYS be a woman’s choice.” But is it actually? How many women are pressured into abortions by the father, parents, their employer, or others? It’s not the woman’s choice in these situations.

How many women would change their minds if allowed to see an ultrasounds of their babies? Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the USA, avoids the other choices. They don’t want women to see their baby in the womb because they might have second thoughts. In the movie Unplanned (based on a true story), Abby Johnson’s boss says abortions are “our fries and sodas”, meaning all other services offered only break even while abortions bring in the real money. They say they are pro-choice, but really they advocate for a single choice. They manipulate women to suit their own purposes. Does the woman really get the full opportunity to choose at Planned Parenthood? It took Abby Johnson many years to come to the proper conclusion.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen turned abortion into an economic argument as well. It is the same argument made by numerous celebrities, something I wrote about in a prior post. Senator Tim Scott’s response to her was concise and excellent: who are you Ms. Yellen to make such decisions for me and my family? Are you the “expert” who can fix our lives? Yellen delivers her message with a smile while reducing a child to a dollar and cents argument. How compassionate is that? You can have a bad childhood and still live a good life.

Our friend, Mr. RawGod, told me a woman who doesn’t want, is not ready for, or is incapable of being a mother is going to make the best choice for all concerned. The woman is overwhelmed and we must empathize and respect her independence, yet she should also be trusted to make such a fateful decision. This makes sense to you because you have a single standard that only a woman can make this choice and that life is not messy and there are not other people or other complications involved. What if the father wants to raise the child? What if the woman’s parents are willing to care for the baby? What if others (friends, relatives, church, etc) are willing to help? It is still just the woman’s choice? Does nobody else or nothing else matter? As long as it is available, you folks will find a reason to justify abortion, just as people find reasons to justify anything they want badly enough.

Mr. RawGod also told me that I am a lousy parent if I don’t support my daughter’s, my 15-year old daughter, choice were to she become pregnant. My wife and I should have no choice in this matter? We advise and correct our children on all sorts of issues, most of them far less significant than whether or not to abort a child, but in this instance we should defer to our child, a child who would be in over her head and caught up in a situation she probably never imagined? What kind of moral code, independent of God or religion in your cases, do you people ascribe to?

You confer upon women, and women alone, the unique responsibility to decide the life or death of a child without input from any of the rest of us. You call me out for religious BS. I call this out as BS as well. You express no concern for the loss of 60 million potential lives in the USA alone during the last 50 years. The Nazi holocaust killed 6 million and we universally condemn those who want to deny its reality. Yet the abortion holocaust is tolerated, basically swept under the rug, because people like you say women need more choices. What gives you the right to so casually and callously decide who lives and dies? You don’t believe in God, but you want to play one in real life.

I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother. – Va. Governor Ralph Northam

Like

Simple question for you: how many fingers and toes does a pregnant woman have? If she doesn’t have a person inside of her, then you must admit she has twenty of each. Otherwise, she has ten of each and the baby has ten of each, and they are two separate people. That blob of protoplasm has a heart beat at three weeks, before most women even know they are pregnant. Fingers and toes take a little bit longer, but they clearly develop before the 20-weeks abortion limit of many states.

Like

And if the mother of a forced birth dies in childbirth, or other complications arise, will YOU take responsibility for the death, or the child that results from a forced birth?
I am not playing god, and you know it. I am giving the choice to the only person who can make it. In the USA, you say, there have been 60 million abortions in the last 50 years? Let us examine that. 60 million ÷ 50 = 1,200,000/year. 1.2 millon ÷ 365.25 = 3,285.4 abortions a day, or 54.76 abortions per minute., EVERY MINUTE FOR 50 YEARS, SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS, HOLIDAYS and wee hours of the morning INCLUDED! Where do you get your figures from? Do those numbers sound realistic, or even possible? Every abortion clininc in the USA would have to have lineups a block long or more outside of every clinic door, and that is absurd!
Get real, Dave. You want some real figures, from Heatlh departments in the USA? Prior to 1973, around 50 women died each year from complications during abortions. In 2018 only 2 women in the whole nation died of complications during abortions. Just guesstimating, but as a rough guess 1300 lives have been saved over the last 50 years because of safe abortions. You may not gind that number significant. I do,

Liked by 1 person

“How many women are pressured into abortions by the father, parents, their employer, or others? It’s not the woman’s choice in these situations.”

And what do you call it when you pressure women to not have an abortion? And, please, how many employers have ever pressured a woman into an abortion? I do not know what labour laws are like in the USA, but I doubt even they would allow for an employer to do such a thing. That is insanity. But since you bring it up, maybe you have heard of such a thing? Why the hell haven’t you protested such action in the media? That does not sound like “choice” to me, nor good labour practice. In a country where you can due almost anyone for almost anyyhing, an employer trying to pressure an employee into an abortion should have been sued.for evey penny he has. But that is a labour situation.

So let me bring up another situation. You said somewhere in your many communications of late that we are trying to defeat each other. That is not how I see what we are doing. This is not a battle, or a war, or even a competition. I do not want to harm you, or beat you to a “metaphysical pulp.” But it seems you want to do that to me. Why? Something about me not taking up your challenge to prove Thomas Aquinas wrong. Thomas Aquinas is dead! As I’ve told you before, it is USELESS to argue with a dead man. But that is not the only thing that is USELESS. It is useless to argue with a person who has a closed mind. You may think you have an “open mind” by your standards, but my standards are much much different than yours. Anyone who quotes scripture in a debate on abortion has a closed mind. What does Thomas Aquinas have to do with abortion? Nothing. Not a damn thing. And for what it is worth, debating religion is a useless thing too. You believe. I fo not! Never that twain shall meet. I cannot debate something that is not there. You might want me to try, to pretend that you can be swayed if given the right argument or information. Again you lie. You are not open to such things. You alresdy know everything you need to know about your chosen topic. You cannot be swayed. And you can never tell me anything, no matter you quote every verse in the bible, because I already know your god does noit exist. For that matter, NO GOD ANYWHERE EXISTS. The only thing that exists that can be talked about at such levels of thought is life. We know life exists, or you and I would not be alive to have this conversation. Life, not god, is the strongest force in this universe. Speaking as an indivudual manifestation of life, yes, we each of us can be defeated on this plane of existence, meaning than our individual lives can be ended, but life itself cannot. Since life on our planet first came into being, whether it started here in our primorfial soup, or whether it arrived here on a microscopic meteor, asteroid, or quantum particle like a quark, somehow life was established on Planet Earth it has never stopped. God did not put it here. Your bible tells us god made man. Wrong. Evolution made man. Life started with a single-celled organism that split into a two cells, and eventually it evolved into what is
on this earth today. Life comes in so many varieties we cannot even count them. Even if we humans blow up our beautiful home with nuclear weapons, and create a nuclear winter that lasts 1000s of year, life will still be here, and if it has to start all over again from the single-celled organism, it will do just that, because that is what life does. It changes. It progresses. This time around it took what, 4.5 billon years or something like that, trying al kinds of various experiments with species along the way, that finally had arrived at what is here on this eatth today, this can all hapen again and again if things like us are too stupid to see we are the one who can choose to end our lives where we stand today, or we can let evolution do its work until it comes us with something smarter and better than it has today. HUMANS ARE NOT PERFECT BEINGS, and that is what evolution is struggling towards. All you need do is tske a seriou

s look at all the species around you, and you can see that life is a progressing thing. Your god is trying to stop that progress. Your god wants humanity to be the most important species that will ever live. Evolution tells us different. And if we were to take an honest look at life on this planet right now, what we would see is that humans are cancer. We are destroying our home in so many ways. We have potential, even I can see that. But the smartest thing for the earth would be to ABORT us, and move on. We think intelligence is the best thing to ever happen to life on Earth. Well, it is our intelligence that could destroy life as we know it, and maybe set it back 4.5 billon years. Hopefully the worst we do is set it back 2 millon years, to where apes evolved into humanoids. Life without intelligence could be the perfect form of life. We today are too involved in our own lives to take a look at life as if it were an organism, yet, that is exactly what life is. And god has no place in it.

Liked by 1 person

Will these numbers make a difference in your calculations? Why do you want to argue the stats when you will support abortion whether it is 54 per minute or 54 per year? I was under by 3 million, but then I wasn’t trying to nail the figure exactly. Look it up from any other source, you will find similar results. This is a holocaust.

https://christianliferesources.com/2021/01/19/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current/

TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973: 63,459,781

Around 18% of pregnancies ended in abortions, almost one in five. Safe, legal, and rare was Bill Clinton’s standard thirty years ago.

Guttmacher says there were 18.3 abortions for every 100 pregnancies ending in live birth or abortion in 2016, 18.4 for 2017, lower abortion ratios than any since 1972.

Deciding who lives and dies is a role of God. Your moral standard says it is acceptable to condemn a child to death because a mother must have a choice. Abortion is playing God. Capital punishment is playing God. Euthanasia is playing God. Murder is playing God. All are wrong. I have a consistent moral standard on life. Where does your standard come from? Who holds you or anyone else accountable to it? Can you even define a standard?

I advocate for the life of unborn children, so I am to blame if a mother dies in childbirth? Do you advocate for looser drug laws? Are you to blame for a drug overdose which results from those laws? You said it was okay for people to protest outside of SC justices homes. What if a justice dies as a result? It almost happened last week. Maybe you think that would have been good. Do you support more open borders? Are you to blame when an illegal immigrant kills someone inside the country? It happens a lot. What if you are Bernie Sanders and blame Republicans for killing people, and then a man shoots at dozens of Republican congressman and almost kills several. It actually happened. Everyone remembers Jan 6, but not this one. Is that Sanders fault? The shooter was a supporter of his. We can play this blame game forever and ever. It is a silly game. It is pointless. It is illogical. I am done playing it.

Can you answer my question: how many fingers and toes does a pregnant woman have?

Like

Every woman has a right of choice. Check my wording vs. yours!

My standard is every case is different. Every pregnancy must be looked at on its own specific elements. The ONLY person who knows all the elements is the pregnant woman.

So much for leaving religion out of our conversation. No one can play god when there is no god. It is all in your mind, and the minds of true believers everywhere.

Your Supreme Court Justice was never in danger, the guy was blocks away.

If the game is silly, pointless, and illogical, why are you playing it. I’m not. I don’t play those kinds of games.

Like

Every case is not looked at on its own specific elements. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers don’t do that. Abortion is a money maker for them. That’s their motivation.
You and your comrades don’t do that either. Your logic is inconsistent. You say it is “always a woman’s choice” or ” the only person who knows all the elements is the pregnant woman”. These are blanket statements that do not account for the specific elements unique to each case. For example, a 15-year-old girl who got caught up in a pregnancy wouldn’t know all the elements involved. She listens to all the adults advising her and the adults’ motives are often suspect as I have pointed out. You have more wisdom and experience than a 15-year-old, so you should realize this.

You also claim the woman will make the best choice for all involved. People rarely make the best choice for all involved, certainly not for something as impactful as an abortion. They are looking out for their own interests most of the time, and they don’t even do that effectively in the case of abortion. Look up what Sharon Osbourne said of her abortion. She is one of the few that warns of the consequences. We haven’t even breached the subject of consequences.

I have made arguments above which do not rely on religion. I said: “you don’t believe in God, but you want to play one.” You don’t have to believe in God to know what I mean. It is a figure of speech not an appeal to look to God in this instance.

Nevertheless, since you object so strongly to God, even the word god, I should point out a few things. The problem for you and your friends is without God or religion, you have no real moral standard to guide your lives. Many people follow a political ideology instead of religion, but that is standard doomed to failure. You will probably say you have your own standard; you don’t need anyone else’s, but that’s the problem. When we live by our own malleable standards, we always succeed. We modify the standard to account for our own failings but not for the failings of others. All of us need a standard that is higher than ourselves, one that is not malleable and one that reminds of what we are doing wrong. We all fail, but if we don’t have a standard to remind us of where we have gone wrong and we don’t have a standard which directs us back on the right path, we will entangle ourselves in inextricable messes; we need a standard one that holds us to account for our actions, not one that excuses our failings. That’s how folks like you and your friends can rationalize abortion. The standard evolves until it supports that which you wish to believe. Start with the standard first and then see how your beliefs fit into that unchanging standard.

You say abortion is not murder because a fetus is not yet a person, but you haven’t answered my question about how many fingers and toes a pregnant woman has. Others don’t make the same argument as you. Nan pointed to a specific example, one where fathers exit the picture quickly. It is indeed a big problem, but she won’t allow for abortions only in this instance. She allows for abortions in all cases, even in the case where it is done for some caprice, like paying for my new car instead of a new baby. What is Nan’s standard? Nan’s standard appears to be flexible enough to support whatever position she wants to take.

I played the blame game for a moment, only a moment, to point out the silly nature of your argument, that I am personally to blame for a mother who dies in childbirth. I took your standard in this instance to its logical conclusion which demonstrates your statement is not credible.

Finally, I ask again: how many fingers and toes does a pregnant woman have? Are you avoiding this question?

Like

“The problem for you and your friends is without God or religion, you have no real moral standard to guide your lives.”

Dear Mr. Flynn,
You have finally made the most STUPID argument any person can make about another person, or group of persons, especially persons they do not know anything about except their own preconcrptons of them.

What makes you so SANCTIMONIOUS that you think religious/Christian people are the only assholes in the world who have morals, just because we don’t use such a sanctimonous word about the way we go about our lives!
(The following will be a personal belief. I will be speaking only for myself, and no one else.) Tell me, do you kill mosqiitoes just because they bite you. I DO NOT! Mosquitoes are living creatures, with as much right to life as any other creature, including humans! To use your sanctimonious language, they are GOD’S CREATURES. Yet I remember at Sunday School picnics and other gatherings the organizers spraying for mosquitoes so as to protect everyone from getting bitten. Probably you do the same, because so few things change in the religious world. Well, YOU ARE MURDERING YOUR GOD’S CREATURES who are doing exactly what your god made them to do. Talk about “looking out for [your] own interests”! Do you or your cronies ever look out for the your god’s-given mosquitoes’ rights to life, and their mission’s interest to take human blood to help them in their propagation processs? No. You cannot suffer a little bit of momentary pain, you strike before a mosquito can even think about biting you. MORALS? I call that total self-interest. Worse yet, spraying for mosquitoes does not kill ONLY THE OFFENDING MOSQUITOES! That spray INDISCRIMINANTLY KILLS ALL KINDS OF BUGS, including bees, nature’s busy pollinators. Pro-Life? PRO-SELF INTEREST! (Remember, here I am talking about no one but myself. You called “me” an immoral person, in your sanctimonious language. I dare you to be as “immoral” as I am? And I do not do this because some GOD told me to do this. I do this because it is the proper thing for me to do! But you have no idea about self-determination, because you only understand about following the rules some men made 5000 years ago, long before your Christ ever lived, made in the name of a non-existing being they called “God”! You make me puke!)

And you probably think I wrote that in anger! I did not. I wrote it partly in frustration, because you insulted the hell out of me.. But still, I mostly wrote it in love. Because “I believe YOU” can still be redeemed from your wicked ways.

J *

And so, back to our conversation, which I am going to write though I highly doubt you will get this far to read it.

“These are blanket statements that do not account for the specific elements unique to each case.” Where do I start? “Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers don’t do that. Abortion is a money maker for them. That’s their motivation.” Is that not a “blanket statement,” Mr. Flynn? Are you sure all abortion providers are in it for the money? Then why are so few of them wealthy, like the manufacturers of cars, and other killing machines, such as guns. Those people have “no morals.” They are in business purely to make money, but they are unwilling to take responsibility for all the suffering, physical and mental suffering, I might add, that their products cause. And “your people” are okay with that. Most abortion clinics depend on donations to be able to do their work, and if there are any profits, which I doubt, they use them to pay for abortions for wonen who want one but cannot afford the price regular medical facilities such as for-profit American hospitals charge. But you would never think of that. EVERYTHING you say is geared to make yourself feel so righteous about your opposition to women trying to be able to give themselves an opportunity at a good life, which your inhumane god-induced “work” would deprive them of.

You are so damn lucky you are a man, because y,ou have no idea what it is like to be a woman. You probably think the changes a woman’s body goes through while pregnant, like morning sickness, sore muscles, back pain, cravings, etc are just the price of having been made pregnant by a man who has no physical “consequences” at all. In act, his “only” consequence was the thrill of orgasm when he put his sperm into the wonan’s womb. Being male is NOTHING like being female, Mr. Flynn, and that is why I believe men have no say in what happens when a woman gets pregnant. A man is risking NOTHING! A woman is risking everything, including her own life, in order to go through a hopefully 9 month pregnancy, and then years of motherhood. And you may disagree with what I am about to say, probably you will disagree with it, but a man is free to walk away from the product of his need for sexual satisfaction AT ANY TIME he decides the ordeal of potential or actual fatherhood is too much for him, which is what all too many men do, EVEN and ESPECIALLY MARRIED MEN who made promises and vows to stick around and be responsible for what their need for personal pleasure caused to happen inside a woman, and afterward. No, not all men are like that, maybe even “most” men are not like that, but way too many men are, especially Christian men who you think so highly of. And then there are the so-called Christian men who cheat on their wives after they get tired of them, and knock up the “bitch” they are cheating with, and refuse to take responsibility for the “other woman’s baby” because it might destroy their marriage, or make them look bad in front of all their Christian friends, and their Christian communities. And how many of these men suddenly decide it is okay to pay for a woman to get an abortion, even though they are against abortion. It is not their body, and if there is no evidence of “indiscretion” then they get off scot-free.

Dear sir, I am nowhere close to finished replying to your absurd comments, and I am probably going to make a blog post out of your comment and my reply to it, but not yet.
Right now I have a life to live. I will pick up when I have some free time to devote to showing you the errors of YOUR ways…

Liked by 1 person

Your bias is showing. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers do not “push” abortion. They simply fulfill the requests of the woman. If you weren’t so biased, you would know they actually provide various means for birth control so women can AVOID abortion. (P.S. You also need to do some research on their funding.)

You made a very good statement when you wrote: They are looking out for their own interests most of the time because that is EXACLY what women must do when facing an unwanted pregnancy. -IF- she is in a committed relationship and chooses to consider the viewpoint of others, that’s her prerogative … and hers alone.

You wrote: without God or religion, you have no real moral standard to guide your lives. That’s baloney. Religion may be YOUR moral standard, but it is not mine. In actuality, there are multitudes of people who live by standards that are FAR superior to any put forth in the “holy book.” You further state that All of us need a standard that is higher than ourselves. And who are you to make this determination? Moreover, there are some who live by “godly standards” who believe it’s OK to carry out mass shootings against other church members.

Finally … it’s been said many times before, but it bears repeating. If a women experiences an unplanned pregnancy and WANTS to carry the fetus to term, it is HER choice — EVEN IF the circumstances are extremely unfavorable for her to do so. By the same token, if the woman chooses to END the pregnancy, that is also HER CHOICE.

Like

My apologies. I see now you did answer my question. If the pregnant woman has only ten fingers and toes, as you say, then there must be another person with ten fingers and toes inside her. But you deny there is another person inside. You are not acknowledging the obvious. To be consistent, you should say the pregnant woman has twenty fingers and toes, ten which are visible and ten inside her which are not useful to her or anyone else.

You must have consistent standards and consistent beliefs or this discussion will never end with us finding any common ground.

Like

You pompous ass. No one in this world has twenty fingers and toes. “Your god” gave most of us exactly 10 fingers and 10 toes, though some are polydactyl. My daughter had only a thumb and one finger on each hand, so “he” stole six fingers from her!
The fetus inside a woman may have fingers and toes, but that neither makes them hers, nor does it make the fetus into a child. It is not yet a person, and you saying it does is just conjecture until the child is born. Miscartiages are still possible right up to the moment of birth. Are you going to condemn a woman for having a miscarriage, because THAT is what you are saying if you count a fetus as a child from the first heartbeat. Anything after that is murder to you. It might not be intentional, so maybe I should just call miscarriage “manslaughter,” but the woman’s body effectively killed it.
Arrest her! Lock her up! (In case you do not recognize my tone, that is called sarcasm!)
And again, your argument is stupid, and insulting!

Like

1. I am impressed with your persistence. It says something positive for your character. You are as persistent as I am, maybe more. Most would have given up the discussion long ago. However, we are no longer trying to convince each other. We are too far apart in our views to move one another. Others may be moved by our arguments, but likely not you or me.
2. Christians are NOT the only ones with morals. I never mentioned Christianity in this thread. Many religions have a moral code. I do not reject Jewish or Buddhist or other religious codes out of hand. Many of them, including some Christian ones, I find objectionable, but many overlap with my views and my faith. Political parties try to espouse a moral code, although they always fall short. Marx espoused a morality and philosophy, although his good intentions have failed miserably. There are many moral codes. I am sure there are even atheist codes which likely have value.
3. I am not a better person than you and I never claimed to be. We are both trying to do the best we can, but have chosen very different paths. However, we cannot both be right about these issues. One or both of us is wrong. I want my arguments to be correct and will advocate for them until someone or some event sways me from my beliefs. I am confident in my arguments, but still open-minded enough to be swayed from them if proven wrong. You have to be convincing to move someone. You have to understand something about them and their views. You have to defeat their ideas. You haven’t done that.
4. The problem is when we don’t follow a standard outside of ourselves. I advocate for a Christian standard, although I do not follow it effectively myself. As a Catholic I should continually be striving to better follow my faith’s standard and to hold myself accountable to it. This is difficult. Jesus said: “Love your enemies”, a simple command which is exceptionally hard for most of us. Someday, I would like to get there. What I see missing in you is a standard outside of yourself, an objective standard that you are held accountable to. If you have a standard you can point to, please share. I would be interested in understanding it. I could say a good standard to follow is Jesus sermon on the mount (Matthew Chapters 5 – 7). There are many common sayings in this that you would recognize.
5. I am amazed you can make an impassioned plea for the life of a mosquito, but wont acknowledge the life of a child in the womb. This is beyond my understanding. I don’t spare the life of a mosquito and I don’t believe it is wrong because God gave man domain over the earth. This link seems good and explains it further: https://www.gotquestions.org/dominion-over-animals.html. We all want to preserve nature as it has been provided to us, while still using it for the benefit of mankind.
6. You provided a long thread on some of the failings of men. I agree with much of what you said. Bad behavior from men and the advantage they often take of women is awful and should be called out. Both you and Nan pointed this out and you are both correct. It is a piece of common ground among us. I would not go so far to say a man has no risk. My wife paid the initial 9 month commitment and as I said in a prior response to you, I provided as much support as I could during that time. I also assumed a lifelong commitment to raise and provide for our kids.
7. Please keep the discussion going. If you put this in a post, I would love to read it and respond. I am not right about everything and I want to hear the criticisms of my views. It helps me strengthen them, but also shows me where I have gone off track. I honestly have not been swayed much by your comments on abortion, but I have a better understanding of why you believe it and I think that helps me in future discussions on the topic. I think your intentions are good, but your conclusions are off base. I won’t stop raising the issue and trying to sway others. It is just too important not to.

Like

Nan, what is your standard that is FAR superior? Can you define it or point to it? A standard without God is lacking in some way, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value. Your standard, whatever it may be, allows for the killing of innocent children, a literal holocaust so I believe it is lacking in some way. I am just not sure yet what that standard is. I would like to hear what it is so we can compare.

Also, a standard does not fully define a person. You are correct, having a standard to follow doesn’t mean you actually follow it. Everyone fails, and some fail spectacularly. I struggle with that which I profess to believe in, but I persevere nonetheless. I point out problems in your views because your standards are clearly lacking in some way if you cannot see the inhumanity in killing an unborn child. That does not mean we don’t give a damn about women or children after birth as has been implied or explicitly stated. It doesn’t mean we have it all figured out either, but we can clearly see that lives, millions of lives are being ended, often for capricious reasons, and often by the very ones who are supposed to care for those lives the most. This a tragedy beyond what I could have imagined in my worst nightmares. It says so much about the decline and the inevitable tragic fate of our Western culture.

Like

Quite frankly, I see no point in continuing this conversation. It pretty much boils down to the fact that you are a believer and I am not. Thus, we view life and all its multitude of parts in very different ways.

As I stated in a previous comment, the closing line on your blog automatically influences any opinion, statement, or reference you might present. By the same token, any comments I make will support my worldview. And the twain shall never meet.

Like

Your friend will likely keep the discussion going, but I am a bit disappointed not to hear more. I wanted to know what moral standard you see as FAR superior to a religious standard (e.g.Jesus’ words in the sermon on the mount) and how that moral standard you follow can so blithely excuse the deaths of millions of unborn children, a literal holocaust. I must have live a truly sheltered life if I have missed this widely held standard that so many of you use to justify your beliefs.

Like

If you have lived your life (or even part of your life) within the boundaries of religious belief, then most certainly you have lived “a truly sheltered life.”

Like

Like the boundaries that compel folks like me to object to the deaths of millions of unborn children while free spirits like you who refuse to define a moral standard for the rest of us to follow tell us we need to free ourselves from our antiquated standards?

Like

You can keep and treasure all the antiquated standards you want. And even defend them. But the line is drawn when you try to tell others who disagree with you that they are “wrong” … based entirely on the moral standards and boundaries that you have set for yourself.

Contrary to your Christian beliefs, I am not made or controlled by some guy-in-the-sky and am quite capable of making my own decisions related to not only this issue but many others as well.

Like

You said: “In actuality, there are multitudes of people who live by standards that are FAR superior to any put forth in the ‘holy book.'” But then you wouldn’t tell me what any of those standards are. How am I to learn from you or judge what other standards might clear my muddled mind?

As far as I can tell, you and Jerry insist on your independence and your ability to define morality, values, decisions yourself, without input from any others. Good for you. I can think for myself is well. I am not a Manchurian candidate who simply repeats what he has been programmed to say by the “guy in sky”, my priest, my parish, or anyone else. As I said the problem with self-defined values is you are able to adjust those beliefs to rationalize whatever you want. That’s why I say you need a standard outside yourself, one that can not be molded to suit yourself.

You seem troubled by the idea that I might believe there is a “right” or a “wrong” or something we can all call “truth”. However, if we cannot collectively agree on a few things which are “right” or “true”, despite our differences (Christians, Atheists etc, male or female, young or old, Democrat or Republican) then it is impossible to share a civilization.

Like

That’s why I say you need a standard outside yourself, one that can not be molded to suit yourself.

I live by the standards that my parents provided to me as a child, along with those I have assumed as an adult, which allow me to live among other human beings without inflicting harm or injury while offering fellowship and camaraderie.

Now please … stop digging. If you can’t (or won’t) accept that there are those of us who do not find your way of living amiable, that’s your problem. Not ours.

Like

Religion is ab9out control, Nan, so this person thinks he has the right to control — everyone. I am not firgiving guilt, but he gas no idea about other people, and other ways of life. He has been controlled since birth, so now he wants to control — even before birth.

Liked by 1 person

Wow. What a wonderful analysis. I want to control people. I know nothing about anyone else, but you can define me in a couple sentences. We all have our talents, right? You have a good one.

I also believe in God, so anything I (or anyone else who believes in God) say should be dismissed in any case. It is easier just to put me in category (dinosaur, perhaps) than to engage in an actual debate. Finding the truth, learning new things, challenging flawed ideas, critically thinking don’t seem to mean much to you folks. You seem to live in a bubble where new ideas or ideas from people you are not used to engaging with are uncomfortable to consider. Did I hit too close to the mark on some things, so it is better just to shut down the debate? Danger, Will Robinson!

Hopefully, someone reading this got something new from this discussion. Maybe we can do it again someday.

Like

When did I shut down the debate? And when did you stop wanting to control women’s wombs? When did you stop wanting to control people’s morals? You even told me we anti-gun people know nothing about guns, and you were going to explain it all to us in a coming post. What did I say wrong about you wanting to be in control? Or do you not understand what control is.
As for Christianity, and God? Been there, done that, no need to ever do it again. You have presented me with NO NEW IDEAS, nothing I have not heard before, just you take them to extremes my ex brand of Chtistianity never went to. We did not want to control people’s thoughts, actions, or deeds. That was up to them. We did our thing. Thst is, until it stopped being MY thing. Once I started to learn about real life, there was no longer any room in my life for a god. Indeed, there was no NEED in my life for a god, or anything that came to me from outside myself. But from everything you say, to me, or about me, you will never understand that. Everything in you someone else put there. You follow what you think is the 5000 year old word of your god, tempered by the presumed gospels of Jesus Christ. Do you also believe god created the world in 6 days 5000 yesrs ago? What about all the other trillions or quadrillions of worlds in the galaxy, or the gazillons of gazillions of worlds in the universe? All in one week? Or did he tske a week for each world in the universe? I have little use for Science, but I know the world is older than 5000 yesrs. I know there are countless numbers of other worlds in the universe. Yet the bible talks nothing about them. Hell, the bible talks nothing about China, or Austraila, and especially nothing about the Americas, or Antarctica. Why didn’t your god talk about them. He didn’t because the men of those times didn’t even know the world was round. And what those men did not know could not be written about, so your god could not talk about them.

“Maybe we can do it again someday.” Does that mean you are shutting the discussion down? Then there us no use in me wasting my time writing to you if you are not going to answer me. Guess I’ll have to wait to see when someday is?

Liked by 1 person

You didn’t shut down the debate. It appeared to me there was no real debate happening. Your last comment is that I know nothing and I want to control people. How much of a debate is that? You can believe it, but you should at least try to enlighten me rather than simply lob Molotov cocktails. You folks have not been very welcoming to me, despite Nan’s claim that she offers fellowship and camaraderie and doesn’t want to inflict harm or injury–only to those she is close to and don’t disagree with her.

I have less time during the week, but I will say the Bible is not a science or history text. Many want to treat it at such, mainly for the purposes of criticizing it. The world is much older than a few thousands years, but civilization as we know it today began around 10,000 years ago with the end of the last ice age. The world was not created in six days, but I don’t take that literally. The Bible was written to explain things to people of that time. God exists outside of time, so what length of time is a day for God?

Yes, I am working on a post regarding gun control. Not everyone, but many people who want to comment on guns know nothing about them, but that seems to be the case for most topics under discussion today. Our civilization has more information available to us than ever before and so we think we know more than all that came before us, but we take less time to think critically and we are more easily caught up in ideas that catch our fancy and unwilling to challenge and adapt our own ideas. It is pretty rare that people are question or challenge their own ideas. It is just too uncomfortable.

Like

Just to make things crystal clear when it comes to me and my comments … I’m expressing MY views of life and the world just as you are expressing yours. I have no desire to “convert” you to my way of seeing life (contrary to the goal of most Christians). Moreover, I learned long ago that believers who are fully ensconced in their faith (as you are) are “open to discussion” for one reason only. They have an end goal and everything they say points to that.

You say you don’t feel very “welcome” on rawgod’s blog. I’m curious. What exactly could/should he do to make you feel more welcome?

Like

I should have used the word civil instead of welcoming. I don’t need a welcome mat. Here are a few thoughts.

1. Attack ideas not the person. Calling me a pompous ass isn’t going to convince me or anyone else to do any better. Saying I lie without proving it doesn’t help either. Make your argument and forget the ad hominem attacks. You will be far more effective.

2. Don’t talk about someone’s motivations unless they are clearly stated. I am only interested in controlling people, for instance. You haven’t met me in person, so you know nothing about me but what I say in my words. I am not interested in controlling people. Your repeated insistence is annoying. If you can demonstrate how I do that, I would listen, but you just basically just keep making the claim without any evidence or explanation. It destroys your credibility.

3. Calling my ideas stupid is probably okay. I call out other people’s ideas myself, but if you are going to make such a statement then justify it. Tell me why my ideas are stupid. I have had stupid ideas and done stupid things before, but tell me something more so I can correct my views. I am not offended by that comment, but I would like to know why you think it.

4. You have a view of all Christians as if they were one entity. Is that any different than making general statements about all women or all of one race? There is a big difference between Mormons and Catholics, for instance. Some Christians want to stand on street corners and holler at people. I can’t see the point of that. There are fair number of Christians who have views far closer to yours than mine. I have a couple in my immediate family. Christians are a pretty diverse group of individuals. You appear to have biases about me because I happen to be Christian. You appear to have set up a straw man which says I am like other Christians you have known in your life, or what you think Christians are. I am my own unique person and that should be respected. Criticize me for what I say, but don’t criticize me because you have a (probably flawed) image that I fall into by default. It is hard to defend myself against things you believe that are not true and come from your own biases.

What is the purpose of debate and discussion if not to change others views in some way? It could be something minor. We don’t have to come to some epiphany, but we should at least listen and consider what the other says–respectfully. It may help in the next discussion or experience. Otherwise what is the point of all this? I learn a lot from others who take the time to explain things. There is nothing wrong with that, although you seem to think it makes me a toady for others.

Relying only on yourself will lead to problems eventually in my view. But do what you will, believe what you want. I don’t want to change you or anyone else through control or by force. I do know a lot of micro-managers in my profession, but I would rather change by persuasion or by example. If that doesn’t have any impact, then I am fine. I go on with my life and wish you well with yours.

Like

You have finally made a comment I can agree wiith at least in part: “Relying only on yourself will lead to problems eventually in my view.. Almost everything else you have ever said to me was in an authoritarian voice, and you have seen how I respond to authoritarian voices — I lump them all together with the other authiritarians I have met, heard, or read.
If you are able to remain autonomous, then I will consider giving you the respect you feel you deserve. But you will have to sustain your autonomy.
But, as for the other half of that statement, Relying only on yourself will lead to problems eventually, what basis are you “relying on” to make such a statement? What problems will be led to? Why will they lead to anything? You accuse me of making unjustified or inappropriate or unexplained statements, and then you go and make another such announcement yourself! But you want me to be clear about my motivations. Which of us is the kettle? Which is the teapot. I told you from the beginning, I speak for myself, and only myself. If I said something, you know where it came from, so you know I mean it. Almost all the things I have heard you say I have heard from others, in almost the exact ssme words. That is why I lump you with all the others. Sure, I know there are many types of Chtistisns in the world, I said earlier the ones who I was involved with early on were nothing like you. But then there are the ones I have met in different places, at different times, in different situations, and your commonality with them is what I refer to as “Christian” because that is the name you give yourselves. Today you told me you are Catholic, which actually shocked me in a way, because you talk most like Evangelicals, Baptists, and other such denominations talk. Not that Catholics are much different, but I used to be able to tell them apart from Protestants. I still have no use for anyone who believes in God, or Christ, not if they want to try to convince me they are right and everyone else is wrong. Or if they try to tell me there is a “god” inside me! which you have said on more than one occasion. There is no “doubt” in your authoritarian voice. I guess you just cannot see why anyone would find a statement like that aggravating, but I did, and I do. I know t

here is no god in me, only me. All your points above only pertain to your half of our relationship, but you don’t see that either. I do not respond to your “requests” because I see no point in doing so. As I said, I am not playing your game. This conversation is not a game to me. While you are trying to seek out the god inside me, I am trying to speak to the human inside you. I have had glimpses of a human, though not many, yet enough for me to know there us a human there, somewhere. Have you ever seen a god inside of me?

Liked by 1 person

I speak in an authoritarian voice? That’s an odd interpretation of what I’ve said here. I will respond to it but it won’t be until the weekend. I want to examine all said in this thread and put it into the proper context.

Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s