Turtle Island is North America. If you look at it from space it kinda looks like a turtle. I wonder how the aboriginals knew that?
The Atheist Holy War
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
Pretty much. I'd say it was time to grow up, though. Some carry it to an extreme (fundamentalist faiths and their attitude towards women, EG)
Good thinking, IMO. However, I am a bit waffly about the kids sometimes being wiser than adults. I definitely think they are more open-minded than most adults and therefore have a less biased viewpoint on a lot of things as adults. So it may only seem as if they are wiser.
lol And what is it that you do, but proselytise about you and your religion (Joeyism)? According to you, you are an expert on everything and never wrong. lmao Sounds just like the Bible, to me.
:roll: So that means it didn't exist before? Or does it only mean that Americans just didn't use it?
They mapped the perimeter of it after 50 people walked 20mi/day for a month each.
Aboriginal GPS?
Seriously, I can't see how it looks like a turtle.
How many people already worship at the feet of specimins like Einstien and Hawkings two of the foremost hawkers of religious ideas like the big bang or how about the cosmological trinity of dark energy dark matter and black holes all complete with the faith based congregations and adherants who religiously keep the faith of the god BigBang.
The problem is not religion but rather religious thinking. Religious thinking is at work where we least expect it right at the center of academia where it leads as many away from truth as ever the god concept did.
The mistake, if conditioned responce can be called that, is to think that those who have used religion to control and exploit mankind would leave science free of their control for the benefit those very same exploitees. If you think science is not owned by the priests you need to think again.
The problem is not religion but rather religious thinking. Religious thinking is at work where we least expect it right at the center of academia where it leads as many away from truth as ever the god concept did.
The mistake, if conditioned responce can be called that, is to think that those who have used religion to control and exploit mankind would leave science free of their control for the benefit those very same exploitees. If you think science is not owned by the priests you need to think again.
What does it matter what website was used, the medical procedures described are the same. There are only so many ways an abortion can be preformed. Do you think anesthetizing or overdosing the baby prior to aborting it would be any better, would it change the result, murder is murder no matter how one tries to define it. You reach a point where no matter how you try to officially try to define something you cannot.
Legal Restrictions on Later Abortion
As of 1998, among the 152 most populous countries, 54 either banned abortion entirely or permitted it only to save the life of the pregnant woman.[15] In addition, another 44 of the 152 most populous countries generally banned late-term abortions after a particular gestational age: 12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Rep., Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Fed., Slovak Rep., Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia), 13 weeks (Italy), 14 weeks (Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania), 18 weeks (Sweden), viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States), and 24 weeks (Singapore and the United Kingdom [Northern Ireland excluded]).[15
Late-term abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your right, no where is Canada even mentioned. You mention how low on the scale the U.S. appears as to medical care. In this case Canada is not even on the scale. There is such a thing as being to liberal. There is no health reason for a mother to abort in the third trimester. Her baby can be delivered alive as easy or easier than aborted dead.
In an event that a mother would die in her third trimester were her baby not aborted, it has always been legal in every hospital in every state in the United States to do so to save a mother's life, and it always will be.
It doesn't. Joey reverts to name-calling and dissing whatever links you use if it doesn't fit his narrow viewpoints even if those links say exactly the same thing as his preferred links would if he uses any (damned few and far between).
Actually religion and religious thinking are pretty much the same thing as the religious thinkers thought up the religions.
Tho I agree with this statement I also observe they tend to take upon themselves as autority figures
What does it matter what website was used, the medical procedures described are the same. There are only so many ways an abortion can be preformed. Do you think anesthetizing or overdosing the baby prior to aborting it would be any better, would it change the result, murder is murder no matter how one tries to define it. You reach a point where no matter how you try to officially try to define something you cannot.
It very much matters ironsides, it makes a big difference which website is used. An extreme prolife website, which is ideologically tied to banning all abortions, is going to distort, twist the facts to support its agenda. Sometimes it may even invent ‘facts’ and figures outright.
You don’t know how reliable a prolife website is, which facts are the true facts and which ones are invented, distorted or twisted facts, chances are that it is not reliable. Anything I read on prolife website, I need it to be confirmed by a reputable, respectable website before I will believe it. But then why not cut out the middleman, the extreme right website; why not go to the reputable website directly?
Let me give you an example. Would you believe anything you read on a Nazi, Al Qaeda or KKK website? You may believe everything you read on a prolife website, because you probably are prolife. Since I am not, any prolife website is biased and unbelievable as far as I am concerned.
On the flip side, I wouldn’t’ believe anything I read on a prochoice website either, they are also pushing an agenda, but in the opposite direction.
It very much matters ironsides, it makes a big difference which website is used. An extreme prolife website, which is ideologically tied to banning all abortions, is going to distort, twist the facts to support its agenda. Sometimes it may even invent ‘facts’ and figures outright.
You don’t know how reliable a prolife website is, which facts are the true facts and which ones are invented, distorted or twisted facts, chances are that it is not reliable. Anything I read on prolife website, I need it to be confirmed by a reputable, respectable website before I will believe it. But then why not cut out the middleman, the extreme right website; why not go to the reputable website directly?
Let me give you an example. Would you believe anything you read on a Nazi, Al Qaeda or KKK website? You may believe everything you read on a prolife website, because you probably are prolife. Since I am not, any prolife website is biased and unbelievable as far as I am concerned.
On the flip side, I wouldn’t’ believe anything I read on a prochoice website either, they are also pushing an agenda, but in the opposite direction.
Your right, no where is Canada even mentioned. You mention how low on the scale the U.S. appears as to medical care. In this case Canada is not even on the scale. There is such a thing as being to liberal. There is no health reason for a mother to abort in the third trimester. Her baby can be delivered alive as easy or easier than aborted dead.
So what is your point, ironsides? Sure Canada does not have any law restricting late term abortions, but doctors police themselves quite efficiently, it is almost impossible to obtain an abortion in Canada after 24 weeks unless there is serious risk to mother’s health.
In fact, some states in USA are more liberal than Canada when it comes to late term abortions. I remember we had a case here a few years ago, where boy friend of a woman went to court to get an injunction preventing her from getting an abortion. Incredibly, he succeeded.
The woman appealed, but time was getting on. She tried to get an abortion in Canada, but she was so far advanced that no doctor in Canada would perform an abortion. So she crossed over to Massachusetts to get an abortion. Once she did that, of course the court case became moot.
Sure there is no law in Canada restricting late term abortion, but there is no abuse of the system. Personally I wouldn’t be opposed to some restrictions on late term abortions. But if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I am totally opposed to digging up the long buried issue of abortion and embark upon a divisive, destructive debate which may last for years.
As long as there is no abuse, I am opposed to putting any restrictions on abortion. Indeed, that is the difference between USA and Canada. We had a vigorous debate about abortion 15 to 20 years ago, the issue is settled and we have moved on. Any politician who tries to dig up the issue will be committing political suicide, especially in Quebec and Ontario.
This is unlike USA, where they will be discussing the issue of abortion for decades yet, without coming to any resolution.
So what is your point, ironsides? Sure Canada does not have any law restricting late term abortions, but doctors police themselves quite efficiently, it is almost impossible to obtain an abortion in Canada after 24 weeks unless there is serious risk to mother’s health.
In fact, some states in USA are more liberal than Canada when it comes to late term abortions. I remember we had a case here a few years ago, where boy friend of a woman went to court to get an injunction preventing her from getting an abortion. Incredibly, he succeeded.
The woman appealed, but time was getting on. She tried to get an abortion in Canada, but she was so far advanced that no doctor in Canada would perform an abortion. So she crossed over to Massachusetts to get an abortion. Once she did that, of course the court case became moot.
Sure there is no law in Canada restricting late term abortion, but there is no abuse of the system. Personally I wouldn’t be opposed to some restrictions on late term abortions. But if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I am totally opposed to digging up the long buried issue of abortion and embark upon a divisive, destructive debate which may last for years.
As long as there is no abuse, I am opposed to putting any restrictions on abortion. Indeed, that is the difference between USA and Canada. We had a vigorous debate about abortion 15 to 20 years ago, the issue is settled and we have moved on. Any politician who tries to dig up the issue will be committing political suicide, especially in Quebec and Ontario.
This is unlike USA, where they will be discussing the issue of abortion for decades yet, without coming to any resolution.
There is such a thing as being to liberal.
There is no such thing as being too liberal, ironsides.
In an event that a mother would die in her third trimester were her baby not aborted, it has always been legal in every hospital in every state in the United States to do so to save a mother's life, and it always will be.
Don’t be too sure. If religious right ever succeeds in fetus being declared a person, a human being, then there will be competing interest between fetus and the mother. Then it won’t at all be clear cut that mother’s life would take precedence over that of the fetus. Both are human beings, why would one life be more precious that the other?
In fact, one could make a convincing argument as to why the fetus should be permitted to live; even if that results in mother’s death. After all, mother has had at least a few decades here on earth; fetus has had only a few months (one has to count from conception on, of course). So it is only fair that fetus be given the chance at life, rather than someone who has already experienced life for a few decades.
So if religious right ever succeeds in getting fetus declared a person (and if Obama is defeated in 2012, followed by eight years of a Republican president, that is a very real possibility), then mother’s life certainly cannot be guaranteed.
There is no such thing as being too liberal, ironsides.
In an event that a mother would die in her third trimester were her baby not aborted, it has always been legal in every hospital in every state in the United States to do so to save a mother's life, and it always will be.
Don’t be too sure. If religious right ever succeeds in fetus being declared a person, a human being, then there will be competing interest between fetus and the mother. Then it won’t at all be clear cut that mother’s life would take precedence over that of the fetus. Both are human beings, why would one life be more precious that the other?
In fact, one could make a convincing argument as to why the fetus should be permitted to live; even if that results in mother’s death. After all, mother has had at least a few decades here on earth; fetus has had only a few months (one has to count from conception on, of course). So it is only fair that fetus be given the chance at life, rather than someone who has already experienced life for a few decades.
So if religious right ever succeeds in getting fetus declared a person (and if Obama is defeated in 2012, followed by eight years of a Republican president, that is a very real possibility), then mother’s life certainly cannot be guaranteed.
:roll:Then you are stuck with peer-reviewed journals. Pretty dry reading. Most people have a little sense and can research things a bit. If both pro-choice and pro-life come up with the same data, you can probably safely consider their data to be correct. It's about using your judgement and discretion. But, that is beyond you, I think.
Nonsense. The ideals of liberalism are the freedom of the individual, human rights, the rule of law, equality of opportunities, and the belief in the market economy. Now this may seem alright, but when the individual liberty infringes upon another person's liberty, liberalism can be too much. And what happens when the rule of law infringes upon the rights of the public? Or what happens when the market economy infringes upon the equality of opportunity?
Any evidence that it isn't?
Ifs? You offer ifs as evidence?
:roll: No-one's life is guaranteed.