Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.


I'm not "playing with words". I have made a very clear and concise argument, of which there has yet to be any attempt to directly counter it...

I have argued that there is no such thing as "lack of belief" when it comes to any particular topic, since the claim "I lack belief" is ITSELF expressing a belief. --- It takes belief to believe that you lack belief.

 

This is utter nonsense. You examine the evidence, such as it is, and come to the logical conclusion that it's worthless. That's not belief, it's critical analysis of the facts. Just as the early astronomers studied the motion of the sun and the earth and came to the conclusion that the latter went around the former, and not the other way around. That's not belief, it's an examination of the facts resulting in the correct conclusion.

 

How are humans different from cacti ? Is THAT what you want to know?

You don't see the difference between plants and humans?? What?!!! Are you trolling?

 

There it is again...the total and complete denial of the history of the world and how humans have acted in it since day one.

Women engage in sex because it is normal (did you know that?), it is fun (did you know that?), it is human, it is natural, it is what humans, MEN included, DO.

BTW, why don't you tell MEN to stop having sex and then there will be less abortions??? WHY?

No one said it was...BUT women have a right to their own bodies EXACTLY LIKE YOU DO....

No, it doesn't and it certainly doesn't have MORE rights than women which seems to be what YOU want...

 

I agree that the assumption that something is true could be considered the opposite of the assumption that something is not true.

But, religiion isn't just the opposite of someting. Religion is about how a person guides their life. Religion is motivating.

Someone who doesn't assume there is a god isn't motivated or guided by that in their daily lives.

Atheism simply means that the person doesn't believe there is a god. Period. It says nothing about what actually does motivate that person. It doesn't even say whether the person is religious in some way - such as various new age religions or Hinduism. It doesn't say whether the individual assumes there is a supernatural. It doesn't suggest any root principles that a person would go to for guidance.

Atheism is one factoid, not anywhere close to being a religion. An atheist may be religious or may not be religious, depending to some degree on how one might define religion.

 

A fetus does not reduce the fitness of it's host ????

READ A BOOK. LEARN something factual !!

Let' s start with the woman's immune system being compromised and move right along:

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

• exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
• altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
• nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
• heartburn and indigestion
• constipation
• weight gain
• dizziness and light-headedness
• bloating, swelling, fluid retention
• hemmorhoids
• abdominal cramps
• yeast infections
• congested, bloody nose
• acne and mild skin disorders
• skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
• mild to severe backache and strain
• increased headaches
• difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
• increased urination and incontinence
• bleeding gums
• pica
• breast pain and discharge
• swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint paininfection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
  (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
• extreme pain on delivery
• hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
• continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

• stretch marks (worse in younger women)
• loose skin
• permanent weight gain or redistribution
• abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
• pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
• changes to breasts
• increased foot size
• varicose veins
• scarring from episiotomy or c-section
• other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
• increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
• loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
• higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
• newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)

Occasional complications and side effects:

• complications of episiotomy
• spousal/partner abuse
• hyperemesis gravidarum
• temporary and permanent injury to back
• severe scarring requiring later surgery
  (especially after additional pregnancies)
• dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
• pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
• eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
• gestational diabetes
• placenta previa
• anemia (which can be life-threatening)
• thrombocytopenic purpura
• severe cramping
• embolism (blood clots)
• medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
• diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
• mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
• serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
• hormonal imbalance
• ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
• broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
• hemorrhage and
• numerous other complications of delivery
• refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
• aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
• severe post-partum depression and psychosis
• research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
• research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
• research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:

• peripartum cardiomyopathy
• cardiopulmonary arrest
• magnesium toxicity
• severe hypoxemia/acidosis
• massive embolism
• increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
• molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease
  (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
• malignant arrhythmia
• circulatory collapse
• placental abruption
• obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:

• future infertility
• permanent disability
• death.

 

Interesing - I'm not aware of the specifics of what the several states are legislating.

I'm still not getting the punishment angle. It DOES sound like a double standard. Obviously, the woman getting the abortion is an accomplice.

But, allowing her to go free isn't punishment. And, ensuring there are no doctors to perform abortions isn't punishent, either. It's just a means of enforcement.

What do these states say about women who go to another state for their abortion? If THAT is OK, then it would seem they are implementing a double standard based on the ability to pay.

 

If one hires a hitman to kill someone , and they do, BOTH the hitman and the person who hired them are tried for murder.

Why should women be excused from committing a crime anyone else would be punished for?

 

Can't answer a serious question and deflects it by calling the asker a "troll".

 

Because incest puts the child's life in jeopardy and rape is not consensual which means the pregnancy is not consensual either. Very simple.

 

NO. The "Pro-Life" side absolutely DOES want to forcefully control women's lives. This isnn't debabable. The evidence is totally overwhelming.

I would add that this direction is not even the only direction for reducing the number of abortions. Canada has no laws denying abortion and even pays for abortion as part of their healthcare system.

"Pro-life" side goes for the laws against women without even cosidering other methods that have been shown to be more successful!!

I don't see your paradox.

Rape and incest are NOT CHOICES. NO WOMAN EVER CHOSE TO BE RAPED. And, incest is at least as bad,

Plus, there is broad disagreement on your idea that every embryo is a "child" nor does everyone necessarily accept your idea of morality on this issue.

Remember that more than half our population accepts abortion during at least some stages of pregnancy. You do not represent the majority on this issue, so don't make assumptions such as you do here.

 

Biology isn’t your thing?

Irrelevant. A fetus does not have the right to use another’s body for sustenance.

 

Rape and incest are crimes, not choices.

So, there are those who see forcing the victim to carry such a fetus to term as the horror that it is.

The difference is in the health and wellbeing of the victim of the assault. Some might include the fact that contributing the progeny of a rapist to our gene pool isn't great. There are cases of the rapist demanding continuing contact through court order. There are the financial and education issues that can be permanently life changing - all being tied to an experience of sexual assault.

If you look at the fetus it won't look different.

But, the situation for the rape victim is VERY different from a situation where there was consent to the risk of pregnancy.

 

You're asking me about a law that was reported by another reporter.

I don't even have first hand knowledge of exactly what the law says.

I pointed this out in my post.

 

A fetus absolutely does reduce the "fitness" of the pregnant woman. There are impacts of pretty much every kind - psychological, physical, financial, limits on opportunity, etc.

And, your assumption about "common goal" doesn't wash. If your view were true, abortion would be a VERY different issue.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
If one hires a hitman to kill someone , and they do, BOTH the hitman and the person who hired them are tried for murder.

Why should women be excused from committing a crime anyone else would be punished for?

What are you talking about ???

You quoted my post above and then start talking about reporters?? WTF...

I was quoting you when I gave that response...

The law says if you hire a hitman and they murder someone both people are charged with murder.

This new law can't change that.

 

So you know every woman and every detail of their lives...really?

But let's hit the crux....you state right there that women who have consensual sex should be punished by having their rights taken away and be forced to gestate.

But an "innocent" woman who was raped didn't enjoy the sex so she shouldn't be punished with a forced abortion.

But I bet you still won't see it even when it is so blatant...


You: ""The difference is in the health and wellbeing of the victim of the assault.""

….and screw the health and well being of women who committed the heinous crime of enjoying sex....


Maybe you want them to wear a scarlet letter A on their chests...be put in the stocks and pelted with tomatoes, dunked in a pond to see if they drown?? ….anything else??

 

The content of that post contains simplistic bovine excrement that cannot be credibly substantiated.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

Ironic PROJECTION given that I was EXPOSING your own Definist Fallacy ("...I need only know that Atheism is the opposite of Theism").

That you are making the LOGICAL FALLACY of ERRONEOUSLY PROJECTING your own BELIEFS onto others who do not share them clearly establishes that you do NOT understand the MEANING of the term "belief" at all.

Those ludicrously absurd semantic contortions above are a sign of DESPERATION on the part of theists stemming from a very real fear that atheism is outpacing theism both here in America and in the rest of the world.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/

So is the strategy of PRETENDING that Atheists are also "believers" a way for theists to stick their head in the sand and DENY that religious beliefs are DECLINING worldwide?

Looks like there is plenty of evidence as to why theists are fearful of "losing their control" over large segments of the population and that explains why they are coming up with illogical and irrational attempts to reinterpret the meaning of terms so as to not have to face the demographic reality that the role of theism is becoming more and more irrelevant in an age when both knowledge and communications are now global.

 

Incessant regurgitation of previously DEBUNKED absurdity is becoming BORING!

 

The transparent "theist PRETENDING to be an atheist" ploy is patently OBVIOUS to everyone who is actually an atheist.

 

Imposition of Theist "laws" overriding the secular Law of the Land? Check!

DOUBLE STANDARD applied to their imaginary god and Women? Check!

Punish women for not being married FALLACY? Check!

Punish women for having sex? Check!

Denial of Women's Rights? Check!

Erroneous use of EMOTIVE terminology? Check!

 

Why do you believe in a delusion some ancient con man cooked up?

 

Ask yourself this instead...does EVERY SINGLE instance of human intercourse ALWAYS result in a pregnancy?

If it does NOT then WHY do people have so much sex?

People have ALWAYS had plenty of sex WITHOUT any intention of producing children. Abortion has been around throughout recorded history INCLUDING in your own bible.

Why would your bible INCLUDE an abortion procedure and why did your imaginary deity ORDER his chosen people to commit abortions?

Consent to intercourse is NOT consent to pregnancy and never has been.

 

Thank you for establishing that you are using your own IMAGINARY DEFINITIONS instead of the OFFICIAL definitions used by DICTIONARIES.

Even more amusing is that you allege that dictionaries "contradict one another" while you brazenly IGNORE the CONTRADICTIONS within your own belief system. Yet another DOUBLE STANDARD on display.

Is your imaginary deity OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT?

Yes or no?

As a theist you can only answer yes because to reply otherwise would be a denial of your own belief in said imaginary deity.

In which case that establishes the logical paradoxes inherent in the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience which negate the existence of your imaginary deity.