Well, when you look at the definition of the word 'murder' and the assertion that abortion = murder, there is a lot of rhetoric to cut through. How many definitions of murder should we have? Shouldn't the act of murder be quantified by the commonly accepted definition? Or do we all just ignore those definitions and make up our own? If we are to make up our own, then how do we quantify any form of speech or communication?
So, tell me, how is it logical to make up definitions to fit your opinions of a certain act? By any accepted definition of the word, 'murder' must involve a living being to take place, and loss of life... until someone decides to include a ball of cells in their definition to attempt to validate their opinion, and give their argument some weight. So tell me, from a logical standpoint, which is more acceptable, the common definition of a word being placed on all of its uses, or the common meaning only being applied when it suits the person using it... and a backup, self-initiated definition, in reserve for when it fits their agenda?
Also, the second part of that quote was a sarcastic jab at the comment I was replying to, which displayed an ignorant rationalization.
What's unfortunate is that you've been brainwashed into beLIEving that I need to have some sort of blind faith to be happy in my life, or to define it. That kind of close minded thinking is exactly what turns me off about religion.
I enjoy my life for what it is, and I could care less about folk lore or attempting to appease some mythical super being. And even if god could be proven, I would still live my life the same way; I am in service to no one, and I will live my life how I see fit.
You stated earlier that you thought me to be a smart person, so surely you've read at least some of my posts. If it wasn't already apparent, I'm often very sarcastic, that comment was one such example.
Yes, I am opposed to religion, and I do think it separates people and makes them self righteous. However, I was merely trying to make a point with that remark; I was not being frank. It was a hypothetical situation, brought up to make Shameless think about the implications of his comment in another context.
Again, I find myself replying to someone who feels the need to place words in my mouth in order to make a point. I really have to question the validity of any argument make in such a manner. Is your point not strong enough to stand on its own? Must you place words and implications in my mouth in order to convey your thoughts?
But to clarify, I would never use violence in an attempt to force others into submission to my beliefs, nor do I condone it. I am not Christian, but one only needs to look to history to prove that Christians have historically used violence to pawn their beliefs off on others. Do not compare me to you kind, and please argue your case on your own accord, without putting words into my mouth. Lest you will not be taken seriously.
What gives you the right, much less the gall, to impose your beliefs on others? It's a sad day for a free country when its citizens even consider pursuing legal means to control a woman, and what she does with her body. So you're opposed to abortion, fine, that's a right that you have, and you're certainly welcome to your opinion. But, the minute you expect others to not only agree with you, but be forced into compliance with your beliefs, you've become a poor excuse for a person; a tyrant. Violence might not be your tactic, but you're no better than those who executed the Spanish Inquisition.
You're right, there is a chance that the embryo/zygote/ball of tissue will become a human life, but at that stage in its evolution it is not a human life. It does not feel, it lacks cognitive abilities and does not even know that it exists.
However, on the other hand, you have a woman that is alive, possesses cognitive abilities and is aware of her existence... as well as the possibility of an unwanted child. Don't you think she should have an option to choose whether or not she wants to give life to another? If that decision is not left up to her, then who? Politicians? Religious advocates? Bleeding heart types? Who of those people is more qualified to make that decision than the would-be mother?
My whole point in all of this is, at what point do you decide that a woman is no longer allowed to decide whether or not she wants to give birth or not? Yeah, we have technology to preemptively solve this problem, but it doesn't always work, and it should be blatantly obvious that we, as a species, don't always think things through until the dilemma bites us in the ass. So do you really think that this woman should be stripped of her choice to create life, just because someone else disagrees
I’ll finish this off by saying that while I do agree with pro-choice, for civil reasons, I doubt abortion would be a choice I was OK with for my girlfriend and I. I would want to keep any child that we made, BUT, I would respect her decisions to abort if she wasn’t read to bring another life into this world.
You see, that is what separates rational people from ignorant, self-righteous bigots; the respect of other people’s opinions. I don’t have to agree with the next guy, nor do I have to be nice about voicing my opposition to his/her opinions, but I would never force mine upon them. Much less seek out legal means to force them into compliance.
I wouldn't consider skepticism to be 'closed minded.' Quite the contrary, it is blind faith, and the denunciation of logic, that is close minded.
