@runner,

The gaol population is not under scrutiny here, your attitude is and you have failed in a serious way to answer the questions. Abortion has always been practiced whether it is illegal or legal. Imposing the carrying through of a pregnancy to birth is a patriarchal idea and not supported by any laws that have a high regard for equality.

When I say patriarchal, I mean it because you are not following the ways of the alleged creator; you are following the ideas of mentally compromised men. The alleged creator has made a system where a very high percentage of foetuses naturally self-abort. The alleged creator has also made a system where all humans die. In fact, the alleged creator is responsible for the deaths of everyone. This is beyond murder; this is genocide on a monstrous level.

Religion has a way of cherry picking its way through its own fantasy to suit minds that cannot come to grips with reality and in doing so, creating unnecessary mayhem.

Either answer the questions or get off your sanctimonious self-righteous high-pony. It will never gain the status of horse.

When religion has simplistically intractable ideas about complex problems all it does is create suffering for actual sentient human beings.

Why not come along to the 2012 Global Atheist Convention in April this year and see that Satan is nowhere to be found there. Instead you will discover, just sane and sensible people trying to help civilisation.

But I guess exposing your mind to anything not fitting a narrow preconceived thought-window would not be to your liking.

David

David

Your irrational dismissal of the unborn being a human being shows that science really has little place in your conclusions. I suspect strongly your high priests Dawkins and others who are chief cherry pickers will be pushing and modelling his immoral views at your love feast. It will only be those wanting their immoral views sanctioned that are likely to be attending.

btw just because I did not give the answer you wanted does not mean I did not answer.

" In fact, the alleged creator is responsible for the deaths of everyone. This is beyond murder; this is genocide on a monstrous level."
Quality lol.

"Embrace the Nothing"
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/reading-rosenberg-part-vii.html
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/12/christ-and-nothing-28

Evangelical Atheism.
(Doing God's work despite ourselves since 2004.)

"When religion has simplistically intractable ideas about complex problems all it does is create suffering for actual sentient human beings".

So true, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.

The phrase "sanctity of [human] life" is a particular bugbear for mine, divorced as it is from any consideration of earthly-ethics or sustainability. On the one hand anti-abortionists condemn the taking of a potential human life; on the other hand they're content to see humanity multiply beyond the capacity of the planet to sustain us. Where's the sanctity of human life when we die en masse thanks to the dictum to be fruitful and multiply?

@runner,

“btw just because I did not give the answer you wanted does not mean I did not answer.”

Sorry, I was after an answer to reasonable questions. It amazes me you hide in this manner but I have gotten used to it over the years. But, I’m still amazed humans can self-deceive like this.

High priests in atheism…really! Shows you haven’t an inkling of an understanding about atheism.

I knew it would be a waste of time addressing you; the fear of hell / annihilation has been firmly planted. You will misrepresent, twist, contort, hide, evade etc to escape an eternity of torture / nothingness without even taking into account the alleged creator knows you are doing this.

I have heard it is seriously against lying, even when it is for supposedly good.

Our conversation has ended if the questions are left unanswered. You might not believe this, but I have a great pity for such a mind-set and it is one of my main drives in preventing this from happening to others.

David

"The right of someone to follow their conscience is not dependent on whether they're right or wrong. It doesn't matter how batty someone is, if they are convinced of the immorality of something then that must be respected."
Posted by Mishka Gora, Saturday, 18 February 2012 2:17:50 PM

The "right" of someone "to follow their conscience" depends on the actions they think that "right" confers, and whether they enact those actions. Harassing or murdering abortion clinic staff comes to mind. That must Not be respected nor must the immorality of doing, or wanting to do, those things.

runner,
Science tells us lots about human beings and their development from conceptus/zygote, then blastomere, through 16-cell morulla stage to blastocyst, before implanting to start pregnancy/gestation; then the embryo and membranes develop (til 10 weeks), then various foetal stages, including a period when it is considered "sentient" (at about 26 weeks), then further progression to being a near term and full term baby. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm

We humans philosophise about that information; science does not do that thinking for us.