Big Blue Wave's Comments
Well good for them, I would keep an eye on this however.
I think so, too. I think laying the complaint based on "religious beliefs" can corner us in the future. The belief in the equality of unborn children is not purely a religious belief.
I wonder if this will open the floodgates for other human rights complaints from other college pro-life groups.
Possibly but what is more likely to occur is that other college pro-life groups won't be denied club status now that a precedent has been set.
That's possible.
I was thinking of other provinces, though. Maybe the Ontario Human Rights Commission won't take the same attitude.
"The belief in the equality of unborn children is not purely a religious belief."
I don't believe you... show me these believers of the "equality of unborn children" that are NOT religious. You know - they're known as atheists or (possibly) agnostics.
The reason there aren't any is because they're too logical to fall for your illogical position.
Seriously - show me these atheists/agnostics who support you...
Joe:
Not sure why exactly they take the stand they do, whether it's because they believe in the "equality of the unborn", but I thought you might be interested.
www.godlessprolifers.org
This statement comes from an atheist too:
If human life is to be protected, then it must be protected so long as any human potential exists -- that starts at conception and ends with death. The willful infliction of death is murder.
------
Biologically, the foetus is a person as well, with its own unique existence and its own unique genetic code. Even in the case of identical twins, things like brain formation and fingerprints (systems that are emergent from the chaos present in the living systems) are still unique to the individual.
Your "keep your hands off my body" isn't founded on logic.
So exactly which one of us believes logically and which one is having an emotional knee-jerk reaction, hm?
http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/
ques...16145817AAqgEwa
Testing...
Having problems posting...
Joe,
Open your mind a little! There are an increasing number of secular or "non-traditional" pro-life individuals and groups in the United States, who base their beliefs in non-violence, science and philosophy.
Organizations:
PLAGAL (Pro-life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians)
http://www.plagal.org
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/...s.org/
home.html
Pagans for Life
http://www.geocities.com/Capitol...8383/
index.html
Democrats for Life of America
http://democratsforlife.org/
Left Out: A Haven for Progessive Pro-lifers
http://prolife.liberals.com/
Libertarians for Life
http://www.l4l.org/
Feminists for Life
http://www.feministsforlife.org/
Feminism & Nonviolence Studies Association
http://www.fnsa.org/
Susan B. Anthony List
http://www.sba-list.org/
Common Ground Consistent Life Awareness Fund
http://www.consistentlife.org/
Consistent Life Ethic (formerly the Seamless Garment Network)
http://www.consistent-life.org/
I don't believe you... show me these believers of the "equality of unborn children" that are NOT religious. You know - they're known as atheists or (possibly) agnostics.
It is irrelevant whether believers are religious.
It's the arguments that are non-religious.
The reason there aren't any is because they're too logical to fall for your illogical position.
Or maybe you just don't know any.
Look at my blog. I rarely cite God or the Bible in defense of my beliefs. I appeal to commonly accepted values.
Those are non-religious arguments. Belief in the equality of the unborn is not a purely religious belief. If it could not be supported without referring to revealed religion, you'd have a point. But the case can be stated without reference to any religion.
"Joe,
Open your mind a little!"
Wow - you guys are right. I mistakely thought that atheists/agnostics were more level headed than their religious counterparts. I was wrong.
"Look at my blog. I rarely cite God or the Bible in defense of my beliefs."
I don't care whether your blog is overly religious - I happen to know that you are VERY religious. You have made this abundantly clear from some of your posts.
I can see now that there are some non-religious pro-lifers. There aren't many, but they are there.
Wow - you guys are right. I mistakely thought that atheists/agnostics were more level headed than their religious counterparts. I was wrong.
Joe, you're still being closed minded and stereotyping when you think all individuals must hold a certain set of beliefs on contemporary issue because they consider themselves athiest. In fact, you're rejecting your fellow athiests the right to logically decided what beliefs they hold true.
don't care whether your blog is overly religious - I happen to know that you are VERY religious. You have made this abundantly clear from some of your posts.
But that is a straw man argument and beside the point. As far as I can see she does not use religion in her arguments against abortion. It is the issue of abortion on trial here, not Suzanne. Are you going to attack her because of her religous beliefs or are you actually address her arguments?
"Joe, you're still being closed minded and stereotyping when you think all individuals must hold a certain set of beliefs on contemporary issue because they consider themselves athiest."
I don't think that... I just haven't heard a reason to ban abortion that doesn't include the silly notion that a fetus is an EQUAL person to the already born. It has a soul etc... Are you really unaware that the pro-life side has historically been fought by the religious??
"In fact, you're rejecting your fellow athiests the right to logically decided what beliefs they hold true."
I don't reject anyone the right to believe anything... The only thing my fellow atheists are required to believe is that there are no gods - other than that it's all open!
I don't think that... I just haven't heard a reason to ban abortion that doesn't include the silly notion that a fetus is an EQUAL person to the already born. It has a soul etc...
Then you're not really listening to the arguments. While philosophical arguments are dominant, there are a number of other scientific and logical reasons to oppose abortion. But are you really going to oppose arguments against abortion on the idea that they "are silly" or don't agree with your own views or with sound scientific evidence?
Are you really unaware that the pro-life side has historically been fought by the religious??
I don't reject anyone the right to believe anything... The only thing my fellow atheists are required to believe is that there are no gods - other than that it's all open!
You counterdict yourself when earlier you said, "I don't believe you... show me these believers of the "equality of unborn children" that are NOT religious. You know - they're known as atheists or (possibly) agnostics. The reason there aren't any is because they're too logical to fall for your illogical position."
You're setting standards are to what one should believe, based on your idea athiesm and logic, nevermind what individuals have the right to believe.
*Right there, you're estabilishing stereotypes and your own standards as to how athiests should believe, based on your idea athiesm and logic, nevermind indviduality or free thinking.
"You counterdict yourself when earlier you said"
You're right - I've already admitted I was wrong.
Commenting by HaloScan
