Anne Jones's World
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2013, 07:41 AM
RE: Anne Jones's World
Someone please break this thread into smaller, one topic, threads... This is too much for one thread and it will turn into an ugly shit tossing battle in any moment now...

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
10-09-2013, 08:14 AM
RE: Anne Jones's World
(10-09-2013 07:41 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Someone please break this thread into smaller, one topic, threads... This is too much for one thread and it will turn into an ugly shit tossing battle in any moment now...


The OP presented this cesspool. I've already tossed one turd back.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: Anne Jones's World
(10-09-2013 08:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 07:41 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Someone please break this thread into smaller, one topic, threads... This is too much for one thread and it will turn into an ugly shit tossing battle in any moment now...


The OP presented this cesspool. I've already tossed one turd back.

but it's not turd tossing season yet!! this is why we can't have nice things Sad

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
10-09-2013, 08:20 AM
RE: Anne Jones's World
(10-09-2013 08:17 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 08:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  The OP presented this cesspool. I've already tossed one turd back.

but it's not turd tossing season yet!! this is why we can't have nice things Sad

Don't worry nach...I'll pressue wash the place when we're doneBig Grin

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KidCharlemagne1962's post
10-09-2013, 08:24 AM
RE: Anne Jones's World
(10-09-2013 08:20 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 08:17 AM)nach_in Wrote:  but it's not turd tossing season yet!! this is why we can't have nice things Sad

Don't worry nach...I'll pressue wash the place when we're doneBig Grin

Ok, you kids and your games... as long as it's all cleaned up later.

Carry on

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like nach_in's post
10-09-2013, 08:36 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 08:49 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Anne Jones's World
(09-09-2013 01:16 PM)annejones Wrote:  ...
what I really want [are] answers
...

Yeah, hi, welcome, nice to meet you and everything.

Before getting into the detail, I was wondering...
Huh
Apart from the issue of prayer, this looks like a debate between liberal and conservative views (using the US labels not the UK political party labels).

So, why us and and why here?

Drinking Beverage

(09-09-2013 01:16 PM)annejones Wrote:  ...
I hope to get a good array of responses.

Is this just like a survey for your website?

If so, why not just send us a questionnaire?

No

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
10-09-2013, 09:23 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2013 01:41 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Anne Jones's World
For the sake of brevity, I will limit my discussion to this steaming pile of presumptuous bullshit you think is an argument against choice.


(09-09-2013 01:16 PM)annejones Wrote:  
Quote:Why are parents being given control over whether or not to risk their child's life? Isn't that a violation of the child's rights?

A child is still a minor child and is the responsibility of the parents until age 18, or the child is emancipated.

Note here, that the right's of the child are subservient to the will of the parent. We'll come back to that I'm sure.


(09-09-2013 01:16 PM)annejones Wrote:  
Quote:You want untrained people making medical recommendations as opposed to trained ones?

No, medical decisions will be made by the individual in consultation with medical professionals.

I'm not sure from this context, but I really hope you're not supporting trained medical professionals making decisions for their patients and implementing them without consent (but I would not be surprised either).


(09-09-2013 01:16 PM)annejones Wrote:  
Quote:(Anne Jones's proposal to charge people with murder) is actually in direct contradiction to the Bible, where the punishment for murder is separate for the punishment to killing a foetus.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement but without knowing what you're referring to I can't comment. Here is a good, short article on the Biblical stance on abortion... http://carm.org/bible-abortion

Great, a biblical justification for a stance against a woman's choice and bodily autonomy. Even assuming that the Bible is true and should be taken literally (two assumptions that I would not grant), please either present a secular argument against a woman's choice, or lacking that an argument as to why your religious position should get the special privilege of violating the Constitution?

Your 'God', if we are to take your Bible literally, is the most prolific abortionist of all time. And I'm not just counting the flood of Noah. How many attacks, sacked cities, and acts of genocide (all of which must have killed pregnant women) did your god demand or order? Almost too many to count. Killed everyone on the planet in the flood of Noah? Did you think that no pregnant women died in that flood?

Now if you believe we were created, then your god has to take credit for our biology. It is a fact of human physiology that woman naturally end almost 20% of all viable pregnancies. That's 1-in-5 fertilized zygotes (complete with souls, as most Christian Pro-Lifers proclaim) are naturally 'aborted' by the woman's body. That is 1-in-5, now take that across all of human history? Yep, that would make your god the most prolific abortionist of all time. This is assuming he really exists and you buy into a literal interpretation of the Bible, and you believe that zygotes have souls worthy of human consideration. Good luck squaring that circle.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfemi...ntrol.html

Now I'll admit that I'm sorely tempted to leave the argument right there, but to quote the late great Christopher Hitchens, "but then it's not in my nature to let off a captivated audience so easily".


(09-09-2013 01:16 PM)annejones Wrote:  
Quote:Planned parenthood actually has many trained professionals on hand for this sort of thing; the only reason you're cutting them out, I assume, is your weird assumption that PP is some sort of abortion mill.

Yes, I do view any and all abortion clinics as mills thus they will be closed, but maybe PP can get into the spay and neuter business for animals.

Once someone is pregnant, the decision on reproduction and planning has already been made. From that point it is no longer an issue of deciding whether to become a parent, with the exceptions that I mentioned, and no longer requires those trained in counselling women on whether to get pregnant or not, and methods of birth control. From that point on it is a medical issue to be dealt with by medical professionals.

Do some research please, it will help cure your severe case of ignorance. Planned Parenthood only spends 3% of it's budget on abortion services, and the federal funding they do receive cannot be used for the abortion procedures already as a mater of law. What do they spend the other 97% of their budget on? STD testing and treatment (35%), contraception (35%), cancer screening and prevention (16%), other woman's health services (10%), and other services (1%). You would deny woman access to contraception and accurate information about it, in addition to screening and treatment of STD's and cancer prevention? You'd take all of that away to get at the little 3% you don't like? Do you have any fucking idea how much additional pain, suffering, death, and ADDITIONAL abortions (from the unwanted pregnancies caused by lack of education and access to contraception) this would cause? It's like setting fire to your house to warm up your hands on a cold night...

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/


(09-09-2013 01:16 PM)annejones Wrote:  
Quote:Also, the idea that a foetus is a person does not change the fact that denying control of ones body is a violation of human rights, which is exactly what your proposal would do to thousands of women who do not want to be pregnant and who do not want to be treated as mere incubators.

All I can say is that I'm sorry that those women take such an immature irresponsible view of the situation that their own actions, have caused. That's not to imply that the male isn't equally as irresponsible, or equally as deserving of being held responsible for his actions.

Women who argue for abortion need to back up a step and realize that babies don't just randomly pop into their bodies. They are the result of irresponsibility on that woman's part. Sexual promiscuity produces pregnancy, and they know this yet they do it anyway. If they don't want their bodies to be used as incubators, then they need to act in a way that prevents the incubator from being loaded. That solves the problem, without resorting to killing babies as a means of birth control.

Unfortunately the only 'immature irresponsible view' here is your sorely uneducated one. For starters, fetuses are not babies; quit conflating the two terms as they are not interchangeable.

Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. People are going to have sex for pleasure and we know they have sex, will continue to have sex, and have had sex even in light of 2000+ years of Christian suppression and prudery. The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. What is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Cheap and easy access to contraception, universal healthcare, comprehensive sex education ('abstinence only' is NOT comprehensive), and a robust social safety net. This greatly decreases the amount of unwanted pregnancies, and makes it easier for a woman to carry to term an unexpected pregnancy. This is the core of the Pro-Choice position, we support a woman's right to choose; whether that choice is to terminate the pregnancy or kept it to term.

If you are truly concerned with decreasing the amount of abortions, then the best way to do that is to adopt the policies of the Pro-Choice side; it really is that simple. The facts are on our side.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/...html?_r=1&

Quote:Both the lowest and highest subregional abortion rates are in Europe, where abortion is generally legal under broad grounds. In Western Europe, the rate is 12 per 1,000 women, while in Eastern Europe it is 43. The discrepancy in rates between the two regions reflects relatively low contraceptive use in Eastern Europe, as well as a high degree of reliance on methods with relatively high user failure rates, such as the condom, withdrawal and the rhythm method.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html


(09-09-2013 01:16 PM)annejones Wrote:  
Quote:(Anne Jones also said that "intentionally ending a human life is murder"). Maybe, but choosing not to let someone else use your organs is a normal choice for humans. If you're not cavilling that people should be forced to give up their organs in any other sense, uteri should be no different. Also, I'm a human life. I'm about 2000% sure that if my life required a kidney transplant, you would be against the state mandating that kidney transplant from you (assuming you were a match).

If I were personally responsible for you having the condition that requires the transplant, then I would have no problem with the state mandating that. Bottom line is that the two people having sex are responsible for putting themselves in that position, and their predicament was totally avoidable. They chose to take the risk and now they will be held responsible for their actions.

Once again, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy; any more than driving your car to work is consent to getting in a car accident. But this makes it more than abundantly clear that one of your primary personal justifications is the punishment of perceived sexual promiscuity (built upon your own subjective tastes). People can, will, and have had sex for fun; other animals do too. You're prudery and religious sexual repression is not a good enough reason to violate the rights and bodily autonomy of another human being.

Are you an organ donor? I am, and if I die and they can use my organs, I want them to be used to prolong the life of another. It is my choice to be an organ donor. If you do not choose to be an organ donor, someone else cannot go against your wishes and harvest your body for usable parts. You are dead, but the needs and will of others cannot supersede your own control of your own body, even after your death.

So how come you don't want women to have at least as much control over their bodily autonomy as a corpse?


(09-09-2013 01:16 PM)annejones Wrote:  
Quote:What is the point of your divorce proposals, other than punishing people who made a mistake? The beauty of "no fault" divorce is that you don't need to prove abuse or neglect, since such things are notoriously difficult to prove. Also, you said: "no one is required to marry someone that they don't love", But, by your reasoning, one is required to stay in a marriage to someone they do not love. You seem to think that relationship are static rather than dynamic. You also make it significantly harder for one in an abusive relationship to leave their abuser; you've ignored that particular criticism.

Most areas have domestic abuse laws that didn't exist decades ago, and those laws require the abuser to be arrested. Even if he flees the scene, he risks being found if he comes back. In the meantime, the wife can get a restraining order (police should be able to issue these on-site). Standards of proof for divorce cases will be less strict than criminal cases because we are not dealing with confining someone to jail.

Once again, nobody cares about 'biblical' marriage or the 'sanctity of marriage' in regards to the laws of a principally secular nation. Might I also remind you that the most religious states, the ones generally associated with the 'Bible Belt', also have the highest divorce rates? Sanctity of marriage indeed, must be all of those atheists getting married and divorced on purpose just to make the Christians in those states look bad.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/...1-144.html


(09-09-2013 01:16 PM)annejones Wrote:  
Quote:Also, commitment's already in marriage. Do you think divorce is easy? No-fault restricts the punitive aspects, yes, but that doesn't mean it's some cakewalk, either legally or emotionally. And uh, actually people are not much less forced to marry now as they have been historically (Social pressure can be a terrible thing). People have always been in unhappy marriages; that's why divorce, solely amongst Europeans, has existed for more than a millennia (Let alone anyone else). We just restricted it nonsensically.

I'm not as hard-line and totally unopposed to negotiation on this issue as I am on say, abortion. I'm open to suggestions that help accomplish the goals of discouraging people from rushing into marriage, or running out of it once they run into some trouble. The relationship between two people is one thing, but once they bring kids into the mix, the landscape changes and the kids become priority one, for me, not the adults.

Once again, I can't say I'm surprised that you want to impose your religiously motivated will into other people's lives. I do believe that the children are a priority. Often times it is in the best interest of the children if their parents do divorce. I can say from personal experience (and I am aware that this is entirely subjective and anecdotal), that I'm happy my parents got divorced when they did. My mother remarried and had two more children, making me the eldest of four. I would give up the world (indeed put my very life on the line) for my siblings, and I would not go back in time to fix my parent's marriage even if I could. Not everyone can say that, my parents definitely had their rough spots before and after they split. I can only imagine how much worse if could have been had they both still be under the same roof.

Still it was my mother's choice to get divorced, and it was a 'no-fault' one. We've talked about it a lot since I've grown up and moved out, and she has confided in me that she got married too young and was simply too naive and infatuated with my overtly confident father. He was successful, good looking, and he had all the answers. After the veneer wore off and she realized that he and his family were just as terribly dysfunctional as her own, if not more so, things started to unravel. The core of the issue was that my father was a control freak, and she was simply being stifled and suffocated by the marriage. My mother tried communicating this, but my father was (and still is) headstrong, and ignored her to do what he thought was best for everyone as the self designated patriarch of the family. She had to get out, it was the only way she was ever going to be herself.

If she didn't have the option of declaring a unilateral no-fault divorce, I hate to think of how bad things would have gone. My father was a fan of corporal punishment, both my brother and I received beatings so bad as to be documented as child abuse. I have lived that life. I cannot abide with your desire to remove that empowering choice from other women. It was in the best interest of my brother and I that my parents got a divorce, even if my father didn't see it that way.


Also, do you remember what you posted earlier? What is the first thing I quoted you saying? Consider

(09-09-2013 01:16 PM)annejones Wrote:  A child is still a minor child and is the responsibility of the parents until age 18, or the child is emancipated

Look at that, you argue that the rights of the children are subservient to the will of the parents. So if it is the will of either parent to end the marriage in divorce, even the rights of the child should not interfere with the divorce. Checkmate. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-09-2013, 10:36 AM
RE: Anne Jones's World
(09-09-2013 01:16 PM)annejones Wrote:  Hello, I am a Christian who has recently been in a debate with a bunch of atheists on another website.

Welcome.

Quote:<snip 6 pages of recap>
That should suffice. I hope to get a good array of responses.

A 2800 word intro post is enough? Are you sure? Maybe you left something out. Tongue

I can tell this conversation you've been having has you upset, that's understandable. What if you go get a glass of cold water, take a little walk, and come back? We'll be here. You can start a few dedicated threads about some of these different topics, and maybe we'll be able to address them better.

I AM he who is called... cat furniture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I Am's post
10-09-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: Anne Jones's World
After taking a quick look at your blog I have a few more questions to go with my previous one. There will be more but just to get a taste of where we're going (provided you come back).

Divorce - Why shouldn't people who no longer want to be married be allowed to get divorced? Do you think forcing people to stay together is good for anyone involved?

Abortion - You state life begins at conception. Do you care to back that up?

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 02:06 PM
RE: Anne Jones's World
Makes no sense to me - stop bullying but start beating kids in school. Sadcryface

There are too many topics in the intro. One at a time would be a lot better. I am not going to make a post with a dozen quotes and comments, although I have something to say about everything you wrote.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: