• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Limits of Religious Freedom

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
What of this resembles a human being?
images
That was on the video? I must have missed it!
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Some children will decide to follow the practices of their religious upbringing and others will not. The ones who do not will tend to blame the religion they were raised in as being a negative thing. The ones who stay will tend to speak of it as a positive thing.
As far as education goes, there are differing ideas as to what is most important to learn.

All freedoms, religious or otherwise, end where the other person's freedom begins.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
What of this resembles a human being?
images

Does this resemble an adult human being?

85539297-newborn-baby-boy-first-seconds-after-birth-still-attached-to-the-umbilical-cord-stump-happiness-fami.jpg


He does?

What about this one?

800wm


You know what the difference between the two humans above is?

About ten minutes.

You know what the difference is between the cells you posted sketches of and that newborn is?

nine months. Other than that? The DNA is the same. The sex is established. All the characteristics of the human being grown here is established, genetically. The ONLY thing that will keep that cell from becoming a human adult is....death.

That's it. It's not going to decide to turn into a platypus instead of a human.

You know what the difference is between any of the above and the following?

images


Just time. Only time. Everything that goes into the men was in the wee blob of cells. Everything.
 
Last edited:

Phaedrus

Active Member
And you are aware that late term abortions are only performed under extreme cases where it is necessary in order to save the mother's life, correct?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
You know what the difference is between the cells you posted sketches of and that newborn is?

nine months. Other than that? The DNA is the same. The sex is established. All the characteristics of the human being grown here is established, genetically. The ONLY thing that will keep that cell from becoming a human adult is....death.
You say this as if I haven't considered it all. And you haven't addressed my points of self-awareness (albeit this is an awkward and not the best argument), that early stages (I posted pictures of far earlier than nine months to show how little you actually know) don't resemble humans, and that we couldn't manage all the people we'd have if we didn't have abortions. And with some women (and men), they are a mercy. Without, our population would be double, up to about triple of what it is now. It's unmanageable. You (and others) also ignore my position that I am very pro-sex ed to reduce the amount of unwanted to pregnancies, which reduces the amount of abortions, safely and effectively. And lets be honest, so very typically and often the pro-life crowd does stop caring about a fetus once it's born. After that it's very typical of them to vote and fight to take away and reduce the benefits that former-fetus may have, not ensure it has a good education, not move to see to it's healthcare, and no assurances there will be adequate activities, role models, and opportunities to make for an successful and well adjusted adulthood.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
You say this as if I haven't considered it all. And you haven't addressed my points of self-awareness (albeit this is an awkward and not the best argument), that early stages (I posted pictures of far earlier than nine months to show how little you actually know) don't resemble humans,


OK, that's a CLASSIC 'no true scott' fallacy.

And it only works if you define 'human' in such a way as to specifically eliminate those early stages. Or, if you define 'human' as 'person,' which of course would be begging the question.

Medically and scientifically, that wee blob IS human. As in...it is a human life. It's not anything ELSE, after all: it ain't a duck.

It is a human in the first stages of development, just as a fetus is a human in a later stage, and an infant, toddler, child and adult are humans in much later stages of development. At each stage, this individual is still HUMAN.

.... and that we couldn't manage all the people we'd have if we didn't have abortions.[/quote]

Of course we can. It's called responsible birth control.

And with some women (and men), they are a mercy. Without, our population would be double, up to about triple of what it is now. It's unmanageable. You (and others) also ignore my position that I am very pro-sex ed to reduce the amount of unwanted to pregnancies, which reduces the amount of abortions, safely and effectively.

Hey. Stop that. I have Never said that sex ed was a bad idea. AND I'm all for birth control and the responsible teaching of its use.

Pay attention. I'm all for teaching birth control AND for teaching sexual morality and that abstinence is the surest way to prevent pregnancy. Not Either/or, BOTH.

And I have never been shy about saying thisl

And lets be honest, so very typically and often the pro-life crowd does stop caring about a fetus once it's born.

Bull.

Nobody has to worry about babies who are not conceived....and I am far too familiar with just how HARD it is to adopt to fall for that 'you don't care' clap trap.

I'll tell you who doesn't care; the government and those liberal idiots who won't let children go to good adoptive families because their birth mother/father MIGHT object.

After that it's very typical of them to vote and fight to take away and reduce the benefits that former-fetus may have, not ensure it has a good education, not move to see to it's healthcare, and no assurances there will be adequate activities, role models, and opportunities to make for an successful and well adjusted adulthood.

Uh huh.....and yet it is you guys who make it so difficult for those infants to find families who can take care of that. The hypocrisy in this position makes me weep.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
OK, that's a CLASSIC 'no true scott' fallacy.

And it only works if you define 'human' in such a way as to specifically eliminate those early stages. Or, if you define 'human' as 'person,' which of course would be begging the question.
No, because early embryonic stages objectively do not have a humanoid figure or appearance. And, "medically and scientifically," there actually isn't a consensus. There isn't a consensus as to what constitutes as alive and dead, either.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Where did you get that? (no where) And, I'm curious, who do you think "those guys" I'm with is?

By 'you guys' I mean the group you have aligned yourself with: the pro-abortionists who say that anti-abortionists don't care about babies once they are born.

I figure that since you have stated that you are pro-abortion and you have categorized 'pro-lifers' as people who don't care about the welfare of babies once they are born, that you belong to that group I called 'you guys."
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
By 'you guys' I mean the group you have aligned yourself with: the pro-abortionists who say that anti-abortionists don't care about babies once they are born.
Well, you tend to do that to yourselves by aligning with politicians who come with an agenda of hating the poor and doing everything they can to make their lives harder than they already are.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I'll tell you who doesn't care; the government and those liberal idiots who won't let children go to good adoptive families because their birth mother/father MIGHT object.
I missed this, but it deserves special attention because it's another bull**** example of freedom of religion going too far, and that is with conservative-Christian-based adoption agencies, such as the Catholics, prohibiting adoption to homosexual couples. And you talk about forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy anyways to give birth to a child who will be adopted, when there are already TONS of children already who need adopted.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
And you are aware that late term abortions are only performed under extreme cases where it is necessary in order to save the mother's life, correct?

That is not true. That are sampling studies of woman that had late term abortion with numbers as high as 80% having an abortion for non-medical death threatening conditions. Fiances are the top in many studies Drug abuse is another common reason along with relationships. Medical reasons are a minority in many studies. Late term, early term, the reason are often the same and rarely about medical issues regarding death.
 
Last edited:

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Yeah, go ahead and name me one 20th century regime that acted on and for atheism.

Stalin. Mao. Pol pot the "young turks.' Any and every regime that kicked theists out of their purview because religion is 'bad' and not believing in a deity is good.

Do NOT equivocate and say that since 'atheism' as a whole means only that there is no belief in a deity or deities, that all atheists are restricted to that. That isn't true any more than all theists have only one characteristic; the belief that there is a deity.

Any time that a government...or 'regime' or whatever, acts against religion/theism, they are doing it for atheism...that's the only other option, after all.

To put this another way: if a bunch of Catholics (or Protestants or Muslims...whichever) send an army 'in the Name of God,' they are doing so 'on and for theism," since they are theistic groups.

IN the SAME WAY, a group that has, as a prime 'tenet' of it's platform, states that 'there is no God' and acts to enforce their idea that 'there is no God' upon people is doing it on and for atheism.

Not ALL atheism, but then not all theists send out armies, either. The theistic senders of armies are still theist, and the Mao's and Stalins of the world who target theists BECAUSE THEY ARE THEISTS are still atheist.

That doesn't mean that all atheists are anti-theist. However, some are....and those 'regimes' which made atheism the 'state religion,' I.e, religion wasn't allowed...are atheists.

Embarassing but true. Just like theists have to acknowledge that there are religions and religious groups out there that are nasty, so it's time for atheists to acknowledge that there really ARE atheistic groups and leaders who were.

Get over it. You guys ain't perfect either.

For instance, Jeffrey Dahmer was a very outspoken atheist...until he got into prison and figured that declaring that he was 'Born again' got him bennies.

Doesn't matter; he was an atheist when he was eating people. That doesn't mean that all atheists are cannibals. It just means that whether y'all like it or not, ONE of you was.

....and the most murderous of regimes in the 20th century were atheist.

Acknowledge it and move on.
 
Top