http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html Member Listing: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/members.html for AAPL membership; one must: 1) be an avowed atheist, agnostic, or other nontheist 2) oppose abortion and desire its abolition (with or without exceptions) 3) support nonviolence as the sole legitimate means of achieving the goals of the pro-life movement I guess the simpletons who have alleged that pro life is a purely religious stance will have a hard tim explaining this group. Pro Life is a stance that spans many religions, political ideologies, ethnicities, and nationalities.
Who has said it is a religious stance? It has though a very very strong alliance with many religions, especially fundamentalist christian, but it is a logical fallacy to think all pro-lifers are religious. Or that all pro-choicers think that all pro-lifers are religious
It is blatantly apparent to anyone who might read this forum's posts. - - - Updated - - - Almost all of the prolific pro abort posters here have said that it is a religious stance, where have you been?
So far the following have been categorised as "religious beliefs" Climate change Gun control Abortion Liberalism Conservatism Oh! and I think changing underwear on a regular basis
Is it, i've seen posts that say that the pro-life stance is based in religious dogma, not that it "is a purely religious stance"
Well I wouldn't expect you to understand. I long for the days when you were pretending to have me on ignore. - - - Updated - - - No it wasn't just some pro lifers, it was theologians.
Oh and then there is the Federal Court stating the same: http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/ "A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. “Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said. The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists."
But the linkage to religious beliefs are easy to establish. Having a religion or not should not make any difference. But those of the opposite opinion are going to look for leverage as to why not everyone thinks like them
And you're misrepresenting what went on. The court ruled it was a 1st mend issue because the prison allowed other inmates religious groups to discuss their religious beliefs but rejected the atheists. Since the purpose of the atheist group was to in effect to discuss religious issues, even as a repudiation, it was a case of the prison arbitrarily picking and choosing who would be allowed to have a religious group based on the content.
This is what I cannot understand. why can't abortion supporters just tout the merits of their opinion? If there are any merits, there would be no need to try to demonize the opposition and claim they have some sinister motives, because the merits of your opinion would outweigh the merits of theirs. When demonization is used based on some fabricated ulterior motive attributed to the opposition, the person implementing that strategy is tipping his/her hand that they really cannot support the opinion and need a distraction.
I quoted the article verbatim. Take a look! Atheism is a religion says the court! Take one more look: "A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion."
Because it is easier. At the very least it is a difficult debate that should center around the rights of the woman as opposed to the right of the fetus. It's just laziness that focuses on secondary considerations
Well it is obviously a matter of opinion that it should center around the rights of the person who had a choice in the beginning and apparently made the wrong one, versus the rights of the person who had no control over the matter at all and stands to die as a result!
First, it's World Nut Daily whichis run by rapturist Joe Farrah. Second, you're about 60 years too late. In 1961 the SC ruled belief in a supreme being wasn't required for a belief system to be legally considered a religion.
And I am not going to be engaged in an argument about who is right. I am simply here to discuss your wider OP about pre-set attitudes before the debate is even engaged
I totally agree, which is why I am struggling to understand the OP, I have posted items showing that the pro-life position is based on religious dogma, no where have I said it is "purely" a religious stance, and even that post was in response to a pro-lifer bringing religion into the discussion in the first place. There is no doubt that the pro-life campaign has its roots in religion, and that a considerable percentage do use religious arguments in their debating .. but that doesn't mean all of them do. I'm more than happy to leave religion out of it .. but.. as soon as a pro-lifer tells me I am godless, or a pagan then they are opening the door to responses.
The point the OP is making, some think an anti abortion stance is based exclusively on religious dogma, which as we discussed is incorrect
Does that mean NOT collecting butterflies is a "hobby"?!?!? - - - Updated - - - And don't forget...WND is Birther Central as well. A more impeccable news source cannot be found.
No but adamantly speaking out against butterfly collecting may be one. - - - Updated - - - Ah here we go, can't refute the message so attack the messenger. Typical.
Easy answer to that, don't reply to me. As to understanding, there is nothing to understand .. this is just another OP dredged up from assumptions.
If you actually read the thread before slinging your usual manure, you would know that I have proven it by showing you an actual atheist group who is pro life. Now, please put me on ignore.
do they, not that I have seen on a general level .. certainly there are individuals here where it is obvious from the way they comment that their own particular pro-life position is wholly based on religious dogma, but I wouldn't say that is true of all pro-lifers.
