Customer Discussions > Religion forum

What's the Silliest defense of Abortion, the Greatest Holocaust in History.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 2, 2013 12:55:46 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 8, 2013 6:32:59 PM PST
What's the Silliest Defense of Abortion?

Our poor Atheist friends, they don't got a decent defense of Abortion,
the Greatest Holocaust in history.
Bigger than Stalin Hitler Pol Pot Mao Hiroshima Armenia, all of them together

Anyhow, look at what they got.
Which is the lamest?

1 A woman's right to privacy
A woman's right to privacy overrides somebody else's'right to be alive.
So a woman can kill someone who trespasses on her land, our Athesist friends say.

2 Nobody can force a woman to do...uh, uh, uh,...whatever.
So a cop, he cant give her a speeding ticket.
My missus, them IRS clowns cant force her to write a check, our Atheist friends say.
I wish.

2 An unborn baby's got inferior intelligence
You can kill people what don't got good IQ's
Like Down's Syndrone.
Bump them off, our Atheist friends say.

3 An unborn baby is not conscious.
Like a person what's comotose after an accident
So its okay to kill a person what's comatose. To get the life insurance. Our Atheist friends say.

4 The poor mother has to make an agonizing decision before she murders her baby.
Poor Himmler, he agonized over them gas chambers.
That made them gas chambers okay, our Atheist friends say.

5 An unborn baby is not able to survive independently
Like a person on intensive care machine.
So its okay to kill a person in intensive care. To get the life insurance. Our Atheist friends say.

6. Making something illegal wont work. The number of abortions will be the same.
Same with Drunk Driving, Burglary, Rape, stuff like that.
Legalize Rape, our Atheist friends say.

7. There have always been abortions.
There's always been Rapes too.
So Rape? No Problemo, our Atheist friends say.

A sorry lot, huh guys.
Now us Creationists, we got a tough question for you fellas.
Which one is the most ridiculous?

Posted on Feb 2, 2013 12:59:34 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 2, 2013 1:03:48 PM PST
Ponger says:
Many atheists are pro life and 38 % of Catholics claim to be prochoice. So your OP is utter nonsense and shows a lot of hate for nonbelievers. But I guess you just follow God's advice, which includes hating and killing non-believers as stated in the Bible.

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 2:48:25 AM PST
Well Christopher, as a teenager, back in the 80's I was compelled (by my parents) to read Francis Schaffer's arguments about the similarity of current social attitudes with the reasoning for Euthanasia programs of the Nazi regime for an oral presentation requirement at my school. If you're interested in doing some Googling on the topic, the principle justification then and today is it's lucrative cruelty.

The potential profit then and now has masqueraded in various forms. Hitler's war effort required the confiscation of property of his millions of murder victims. But the propaganda of his social programs was advocacy for the applied Eugenics agenda of Social Darwinism. By classifying as "useless eaters" anyone whose genetic makeup wasn't fit for propagating the Aryan race, Gypsies, Jews, the handicapped and elderly, and infants guilty of being sickly or too weak, accomplices to all these programs were indicted under the banner of Euthanasia, by the Nuremberg Trials.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm

American eugenicists started their campaigns in the poorest regions of American cities, promoting the idea that poor and indigent mothers need not bring into this world any further mouths to feed. American Pro-lifers have been preached at about the Family Planning agenda of Planned Parenthood, about their goals of achieving political power through lobbying to sterilize the poorest of the poor which were however, nothing like the delusional ambitions of Hitler and Himmler.

The goal of abortion lobbyists today is preserving a profitable medical industry. And in this industry is the bone of contention about the vacillating standards of medical ethicists. If you Google the terms Nuremberg, and Infanticide, which was one of many Nazi euthanasia programs but not a specific indictment, you can find where protocols for infanticide based on the prognostication of "Quality-of-Life" being poor or negligible is trendy in Europe and also American Ivy League medical departments.

If you're not a Christian, it's of little interest that some people believe life is sacred. Though that's not an exclusively Christian belief. Consequently, Christians aren't the only ones who find some abortion procedures deeply offensive, besides being lucrative cruelty. An atheist has little interest in the concept of life in the womb being acknowledged by the prophets Ezekiel, and Isaiah, and the Psalmist David. Nor the New Testament attributions of cognizance of prenatal John the Baptist, or God's prenatal ordination of Jesus.

The potential that we might be aborting the next Mozart or the next Einstein isn't part of the for-profit agenda. Those people are scarey examples of individualism to a brave new world. The potential of a human body being a temple, common to some Eastern religious thought, and from a Christian perspective as temple of the Holy Spirit is not a universally accepted belief either.

Most of John's gospel about the "life" and the "light" and the "spirit" strikes most readers as esoteric/hidden knowledge bordering the incredible. You've likely noticed the Born Again Christian flock picks and chooses parts of this gospel to exclude people, and ignores it's strenuously un-Jewish character. But if the author didn't confuse his metaphors, then we Christians follow a pre-existant path, where John says, (in Chapter 1: 4+5, 9+10, ASV)

4 "In him was life; and the life was the light of men."
5 "And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not."
[Also]
9 "There was the true light, [even the light] which lighteth every man, coming into the world."
10 "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not."

It's Christianese to quote Jesus' remark in Johns words, "I Am the Light of the World, he who believes in me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." It was endemic to eastern thought that light naturally proceeds from darkness, even as Genesis enumerated the evening and the morning as the first day. Without this idea of the life pre-existant in a seed, or in the womb, nature is also un-natural.

Therefore, you shouldn't masturbate. And follow the cardinal rule of Christianity, to be fruitful and multiply, and sow your seed with as many fertile members of the opposite sex as will suffer your common law vows until in marriage shall you be bound unto death. Remember Jesus doesn't love the divorced because they're adulterers.

But you don't have to worry as much about abortion according to the Bible. The Ecclesiastes says the unborn really are better off.

2 "Wherefore I praised the dead that have been long dead more than the living that are yet alive;"
3 "yea, better than them both [did I esteem] him that hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun."
(Ecclesiastes 4:2+3, ASV)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 3:57:19 AM PST
Theo says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 5:39:35 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 25, 2013 11:43:49 PM PDT]

Posted on Feb 3, 2013 5:50:49 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 3, 2013 6:29:03 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 5:57:56 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 25, 2013 11:43:54 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 6:20:32 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 25, 2013 11:43:57 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 6:24:11 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 25, 2013 11:43:58 PM PDT]

Posted on Feb 3, 2013 11:43:21 AM PST
What's more offensive, Christopher's factual errors or his straw men?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 12:41:33 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 5, 2013 4:47:17 PM PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

It is fascinating to me that some people would choose an unsentient life - a life with no sense of self or pain, no feelings, no awareness, no consciousness, no history, no hopes or fears - over a fully-formed and birthed sentient woman.

Edit: "insentient"

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 7:07:50 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 25, 2013 11:44:01 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 7:18:22 PM PST
Yes, it is. I ran across an appropriate phrase on another forum: "Grade A weaponized stupid."

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 7:50:17 PM PST
J. Russell says:
Gee I did not know that only atheists were pro-choice, and I did not know all atheists were pro-choice.

Amazing the "facts" Chris just pulls out of that dark moist place he sits on.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 8:02:51 PM PST
S. Friedman says:
Meanwhile, 2/3 of abortions are performed on Christians.
I guess atheists must be holding them down and forcing them to abort.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 8:32:02 PM PST
Cheri says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 3, 2013 8:40:05 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 3, 2013 8:40:58 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 8:52:03 PM PST
I am a Christian, but I don't believe in butting into other people's business.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 9:25:05 PM PST
Cheri says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2013 10:20:03 PM PST
Newsclip - woman dies in Ireland after being refused an abortion -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkf9VkdgQQc

Tell me this woman felt no pain before she died.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2013 6:59:26 AM PST
Theo said:

>>"On the other hand, having an abortion is NOT murder; it is the
destruction of potential human life and that alone reeks havoc
on the human soul (usually the woman alone.)"

J.H.--I think we've hit a nerve with that one Theo. Our society is a bit spoiled, I think. We're accustomed to medical interventions of science to pull off sucessful births, where historical odds of miscarriage (or abortion by proxy) were sometimes a life saver for the mother, while the live birth (with complications) often meant her demise.

I knew someone with what's called an RH factor who had one child, and thereafter several miscarriages, who was devastated by circumstances beyond her control. In my own family, an 18 year old cousin was subjected to the minstrations of an abortion clinic by her father, who couldn't bear the social stygma of her being an unmarried student and bringing a baby into their home.

Her brother told me, years later that her love was "stolen from her." She used the pistol in her mother's night stand to take her own life. She was beautiful. But her decision wasn't grounded in grief alone, it was a retribution against a tyranical father. And they weren't any way religious.

I spent decades shaking off the fundamentalist nonsense answers about suicide, after staying a few nights in their home, and feeling her ghost (that unfulfilled painful grief the Navajo's label "Chindi") in correspondance with her siblings thereafter I could not ever support the idea that God might compound injustice on top of injustice. But it's not my family who burdens me with grief night after night.

When I think about the fluctuating demarcation line between the live born, and the almost born fetus, I recall the first child, the love child of David and Bathsheba was condemned to death for no fault of it's own.

When one studies the scripture, there can be found some human lives which are by no means counted sacred. And when God takes a life, it's not counted unmerciful to that life which was taken, only as a grief to the living. It's uncomfortable for people to consider the commandment against murder is one of those examples of Torah wall-building, it prevents repercussions with the family of the murdered one. For example the cities of refuge, and the rightful claim of revenge by the relatives of the deceased. It doesn't address at all the concept of capital punishment.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2013 7:05:50 AM PST
Alphawing Karen, after reading that story, I really hope the medical inquest finds that hospital to be negligent. At the same time, I hope Irish law isn't so backwards that had she, a medical professional opted to induce abortion by her own means, that they wouldn't be prosecuting her.

It stretches belief to think they'd never heard of or sought RU486 morning after pills if they had an inkling her life was thus endangered.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2013 7:28:59 AM PST
Bubba says:
I found some nice soft rope that holds a knot very well, do you need a hank of it?

Posted on Feb 4, 2013 7:38:25 AM PST
Eric Preston says:
Another pro-life Atheist chiming in.

There is no official 'Atheist' view on anything, except that there is no god.

Please remember this.

Atheism is not an organization. It is a label for someone that doesn't believe in the super natural.

Professing an 'Atheist' view on anything, except the above, is absurd.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2013 7:42:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 4, 2013 7:44:26 AM PST
goblue says:
<<Eric Preston: Professing an 'Atheist' view on anything, except the above, is absurd>>

I would respectfully disagree. Atheism is an idea - and ideas, when applied to life have consequences - so when atheism is appiled then teh atheism has an atheist view.

On what basis are you pro-life?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 78 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1213 Aug 12, 2014
Has Islam become infected with a sickness? 699 20 seconds ago
Science II 2550 10 minutes ago
A Poll for Atheists: Do you believe that theists are lacking intelligence? 892 26 minutes ago
Aatheism - a logical contention 1620 34 minutes ago
The Religion Of Atheism 79 34 minutes ago
I Guess It's Official. I Win the Amazon Religion Forum. 585 35 minutes ago
!!!! atheists won !!!! 3052 40 minutes ago
Slowly through the Book of Job - Part 3 429 40 minutes ago
Here they go again: Shakepen wildly claims:"To LDSaint: Of course, creationism is wrong......Creationism can be proved wrong because it is contradicted by a number of sciences." 356 52 minutes ago
Atheism; The Zealous Religion Of Anti-Religion..... 712 1 hour ago
What roll does religion play with respect to sanity? 94 2 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  75
Total posts:  1940
Initial post:  Feb 2, 2013
Latest post:  Apr 15, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions