Red Sky at Morning
- Mar 15, 2017
First to the rudeness point as it is partly a stylistic issue. I simply find that debating styles that include name calling and misrepresentation dull and imprecise.Your attempt to discredit my comment is laughable. Let's take a look at your flawed reasoning now, shall we?
"I tend to find that those who rely on rudeness and aggression to make a point often have a point that couldn’t stand up for itself."
^^^ Too bad your "reasoning" is flawed.
- Every point I've made is based on FACT and our very real, LIVED experiences as women. If you can't accept it because you get off on torturing girls and women, I guess that's your problem now, isn't it?
- Also, focusing on "rudeness" here is just a gaslighting technique. Funny how you're more concerned with "rudeness" in the face of women being tortured, abused and violated by pro forced-birthers. We can see through your attempt to draw focus to "rudeness" because you want to draw away focus from the repulsiveness of your crimes against the female gender.
- There wouldn't be any need for "rudeness" in the first place, if you people respected women and didn't violate their health, bodily autonomy and dignity. Correct your attitude and your perverted misogyny and you won't be met with "rudeness".
"If the Bible happens to be true (and there are many who believe there is compelling evidence to believe that to be so) then there is clearly a vertical as well as a horizontal component to morality. The One who created life would therefore have a valid say over how we get to define when we can take it away.
^^^ It doesn't matter if many "believe" in the bible. Your "belief" does not supersede the lived experiences of women, or the medical reality of pregnancy and childbirth.
- And for those of you who "believe" in the bible, the bible clearly states that life begins at FIRST BREATH.
If "The One who created life would therefore have a valid say over how we get to define when we can take it away,"
^^^ Then you have no right to kill an animal and eat it, or wear it. You also have no right to kill others in war.
- What is this "valid say" you're talking about. Did the "One" come down and whisper in your ear that women must be bred against their will? Does that make your version of 'god' a forced-impregnator? If god is in fact good, then god can't be a forced impregnator. Anyone with higher spiritual knowledge and compassion knows the real god would never be like that. So your point is deeply flawed and quite frankly, embarrassing for you.
And last but not least, you "christians" are not the only ones around here. There are SEVERAL other religions in this wide-world. You do not have the right to force your misguided, perverted views driven by your own repulsive misogyny on other people.
I deliberately left out my own view of the why’s and when’s of abortion but noted with interest that belief in the Bible and a subscription to a kind of “Handmaids Tale” patriarchy was assumed.
For what it’s worth, I do believe that there are circumstances where abortion is the least bad option and that circumstances can sometimes create exceptions to general legislated rules. I also believe that abortion on demand up to birth for any reason is barbaric. In reality we are talking about the lives of two individuals. The topic is painful, nuanced and has unchangeable effects on the life of mother and child either way.
The words “lived reality” also interested me as it is a modern version of unquestionable truth. It certainly meshes with many of the popularly emerging societal beliefs right now. Let me offer you a question on this that stems from a genuine person I know. At the school of a child I know, there is presently a girl who’s lived reality is that she is a cat. She hisses, gets up and wanders freely and for all I know plays with a ball of string at break. Should the school yield to this lived reality and fit a cat flap by way of inclusion or challenge her by sending her to the school counsellor?
Taking lastly your point on the diversity of intellectual and religious views, I certainly acknowledge that diversity but reject the idea that diversity must automatically mean that the truth is divided evenly between those views. Take for example a scientific question..,
Imagine there is a dispute about the nature of the moon. There are people who believe it to be young, others old, some believe it to be a reflective disc, others a sphere. Some think it made of rock, others of cream cheese. In scientific journals on astrophysics these positions (except perhaps the cream cheese one) are critiqued and weighed.
Some might argue that when it comes to more abstract topics such as moral values and religious perspectives these are not subject to scrutiny. I would disagree, especially with regard to Christianity. To illustrate this, I would certainly agree that all the claims cannot be substantiated by external means of history, archaeology and science but enough can to make a good case for a significant number of minimal facts. Given that these (especially related to the death and resurrection of Jesus) if the Christian view of those events are true, Islamic contradictory claims would therefore be false.