On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:15:28 -0800, in alt.abortion, Robert
<robpar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:32:38 -0500, "Mitch Dickson"
><mitchelldickson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>"Abort Abortionists" <abort.murderers@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:4bc005c09e2a44ab1bce76219c1b4f47@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, MarkA <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >I'm being completely serious. I cannot understand why people oppose
>>> >abortion. Can someone please explain it to me?
>>
>>Ignoring the gobblydgook of the previous poster let me make a couple of
>>simple statements.
>
>Call a simple statement gobblydgook, then spew pure nonsense.
>
>> An athiest, or one who believes that life is only physical can accept
abortion.
>
>An atheist simply doesn't fall for simple minded scams. BTW only about
>15% of the population is atheist.
I've often wondered about the labels we are using, theist atheist,
and agonistic. I've always wonder where I fit in. You see, I don't
think if there is a god/creator/force, it cares or screws with
people's lives in a daily basis or ever has. Theists try to apply
their own concepts and molds forcing god into a human form. A form
with human emotions and human needs. When they state god wants to be
wor****ped, adored, prayed to and served, they are doing just that,
forcing their god into molds of their own creation, modeling God
after their own desires. Then for some reason they end up creating an
entire mythos of an afterlife, the so called reward, and carrot and
stick system to force them into an ethical behavior.
>But 75-80% of the population is
>pro-choice. Being pro-choice is not by any means a requirement of
>being atheist. In fact many atheist oppose abortions, because it cause
>potential atheist to be aborted. Nothing like a Christian home to
>raise an atheist child.
See again we create labels. Pro-choice and pro-life. these labels are
not even close to being descriptions.
There are only too sides to the Abortion issue, with some minor lines
drawn in the finer details. The side are really nothing and
pro-choice (freedom to choose for ones self) and the other side is
anti-choice (freedom of no choices for ones self).
The with the anti-choice group, their choice is to remove the freedom
of anyone but "biological chance" to remove a fertilized egg, and
carrying to term of a ova. "Biological Chance" is the statistical
fact that the majority become of fertilized human embryos do not
implanted.
To complicate the anti-choice side and muddy the waters, there is a
group within itself which would stop all forms of birth control
(conception control) of any sort. The odd thing is this part of the
anti-choice side is lead by a dictatorial group of men, who have
taken vows of chastity, never to father children.
Then to look even to the so called pro-life groups, they are lead by
people that at against all forms of social welfare, child health
care, and disease prevention. Some of anti-choice are even people
that owe money for child sup****t and are guilty of child abuse. Some
of the So called pro-life force are for killing people that are
pro-choice.
<snip>
The issue is always about choice and freedom.
The anti-choice side is all about removing freedom and controlling
people. Simple isn't it.
The pro-choice side is for allowing people the most freedom of choice
available. Birth control, Abortion, adoption, chastity, even
vasectomy/tubal ligation are all choices and option, options of
freedom which the anti-choice would like to have full control by
removing all options and choices.
In our little discussions here remember do let the
anti-choice/antifreedom people apply false labels or bring up false
issues.
It all about freedom and choice and control. Who better to have
control? Who better to make choices? Who better to exercise the
responsibility of freedom?
--
Ak'toh'di
|
