Christianity Offially on the UP in England and Wales

[Rhyfelwyr]

“a moderate pro-lifer”: An anti-abvortionist generally pro death penalty can't be seen as a pro-life.

Sorry I'm an idiot, I meant a moderate pro-choice person.

I would think not putting everything into black and white would be more logically and morally consistent. But I guess when you say "consistent" you are talking about the straight definition of the word and not correlating it to how "smart" or "right" it is. According to you, "All Muslims are either with us or against us. It doesn't matter what sect or portions they follow." would be very logically consistent in that, saying "well it depends on how they interpret the koran" is a very weak argument apparently.

I know it's easy to dismiss religious people as seeing everything in black and white, but I would have thought even a secular humanist would agree that the right to life is an absolute value. Therefore if you treat an absolute value as having grey areas, you are being logically inconsistent.

I also don't see how you're analogy with Islam works, because while we both (I think?) accept that the right to life is a single, aboslute principle, Islam is of course simply an umbrella term for a huge range of beliefs.

And in your example, that is far from putting "practicality above consistency" to those who choose to differ when to abort a baby based on the status of the father (rapist or not) it is all about morality. They feel that it is more wrong for a mother to live raising the son of the man who raped her for the rest of her life and for the child to live knowing his father was one of the most despicable kind of men that scour society then to have the baby aborted. That's not practicality, that's morality.

Birth defects, rape, unfit to be a mother etc... all these issues cannot be used to overrule an absolute principle like the right to life.

To take your bolded example, you are completely inconsistent here. Would you kill that baby for those reasonsif it had already been born? Of course not.

Yet strangely, when it comes to a baby which would be born into a healthier environment, a moderate pro-choice person like yourself might say that baby has the right to life after the first trimester. Well babies created through rape would surely be no different in this respect, would they? So if that baby has the right to life, how on earth can it be justly aborted after the first trimester?

I just think neither of you two can see that morals don't have to come from your religion or religion period and that there are some morals which do have some validity to them that haven't emerged from religion period. And now you simply just dismiss them as "not consistent" or "practicality".

I think people often like to dismiss us like this because it is easier than actually seriously thinking about their own positions on the issue. You need to adress the lack of any sort of logical consistency in your argument. At least the extreme fringe of the pro-choice movement are logically consistent, although you would have to wonder why the baby suddenly becomes human at the point of birth.

Well it looks like Rhy was right. The Pope arrives draped in tartan and the crowds talk of how great it is for "Scottish" culture. They know nothing. What a shame the Vatican can't just come here with a spiritual message over 400 years since we rejected Rome.

Justification at last! Nobody ever believed me, they just said I'm a crazy Hun, a bigot etc. But at last the experts are catching up, Mr. Devine was on the news last night and finally acknowledged that Catholics are increasingly driving the nationalist movement. Said it years ago myself in a paper for one of my politics classes (in a more academic tone than I do here of course, without the bias!), when you know the historical perpective it all makes sense, you've got to look beyond Scotland itself and understand how these identities all relate with Britain and Ireland etc.

It just shows to me that the Varican doesn't care about it's spirituality, it cares about its heiarchy and institution.

I would be ignoring the beam in my own eye if I upbraided them for this. Sadly what you said is true for many churches today. They are more like a social club, they have no interest in actually following the Gospel.

[HoreTore]

Sorry I'm an idiot, I meant a moderate pro-choice person.

"Choice" is the buzzword of the right.

A proper leftie calls himself "pro-abortion", because that's what we want to enable people to do. Choices are for the bourgeoisie.

[Beskar]

A proper leftie calls himself "pro-abortion", because that's what we want to enable people to do. Choices are for the bourgeoisie.

You are actually incorrect, since "Pro-abortion" is different to "Pro-Choice", as "Pro-Abortion" pretty much means "abort all babies", opposed to "Pro-Choice", where you have the option of abortion or not.

[HoreTore]

You are actually incorrect, since "Pro-abortion" is different to "Pro-Choice", as "Pro-Abortion" pretty much means "abort all babies", opposed to "Pro-Choice", where you have the option of abortion or not.

Nonsense. If I'm "pro-trains", does that mean I want to ban all other forms of transportation? Of course not, but it does mean that I support having trains as a viable and competitive alternative. "pro-abortion" doesn't mean abort all babies, it means that I support(pro) the abortion law.

Btw: thank you Philipvs, for proving my point, that a christian majority will implement draconian laws and be a complete disaster to our nations, beyond all doubt.

Commies, fascists and christians; may they never gain power again.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Commies, fascists and christians; may they never gain power again.

Yeah we stop people from violating babies' right to life, what will we do next...

[HoreTore]

Yeah we stop people from violating babies' right to life, what will we do next...

If that's your view; fine by me. It's not my view that a fetus is anything more than a lump of cells, which is why I hope you won't gain power because your stance is the complete opposite of mine.

No hard feelings bro, we just disagree is all!

Another example:

I am strongly in favour of immigration. However, I don't consider it illegitimate to want the opposite. That however, doesn't mean I won't hope that they'll never gain the power to stop immigration. And if they do, I will still consider it a draconian law.

@Beskar: When I think about it, "abortion-supporter" is probably a better translation of the term used to describe those in favour of abortion here.

[Beskar]

A row erupted during a speech in which the Pope appeared to associate atheism with the Nazis has prompted criticism from humanist organisations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

The Catholic Church has moved to play down the controversy, saying the Pope knew "rather well what the Nazi ideology is about".


People dare accuse that atheism and secularism is aggressive when non-believers had to constantly put up with this nonsense for years. There needs to be some militant atheism to help put away these old dinosaurs who are long past their expiry date.

[Beskar]

Nonsense. If I'm "pro-trains", does that mean I want to ban all other forms of transportation? Of course not, but it does mean that I support having trains as a viable and competitive alternative.

Huh? What was nonsense is saying pro-trains = ban others forms of transport.

If you are pro-trains, you are for the promotion of trains as a means of transport, over other types. For example "When it comes to transport, I am pro-train, I advocate the use of trains above the rest". So pro-train would be the active advocation of using trains or in favour of it being used. So pro-abortion would be the active advocation of using abortion or in favour of it being used.

Pro-Choice sums it up correctly, I only view it as a complete last resort, however, I do not want it to be illegal/banned, as that would cause more problems then solve them and I am no problem with people having the choice of abortion.

[gaelic cowboy]

Birth defects, rape, unfit to be a mother etc... all these issues cannot be used to overrule an absolute principle like the right to life.

To take your bolded example, you are completely inconsistent here. Would you kill that baby for those reasonsif it had already been born? Of course not.

Yet strangely, when it comes to a baby which would be born into a healthier environment, a moderate pro-choice person like yourself might say that baby has the right to life after the first trimester. Well babies created through rape would surely be no different in this respect, would they? So if that baby has the right to life, how on earth can it be justly aborted after the first trimester?

I would agree with this sentiment and I don't believe in God/Gods at all.

It strikes me that a lot of the reasoning stems almost from a medieval demon seed type fear hence the use of potential rape as a vaild reason.