When Religion Feels a Lot Like Abortion

TMI

Full disclosure: I’m a Christian. I’m also personally pro-life. Meaning that, speaking for myself, I’m willing to put the life of my unborn child above my own convenience, peace of mind, or almost anything else that doesn’t end in my death. I know this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Because I’ve done it.

I carried a pregnancy, as a university student just out of my teens, that was definitely unplanned and most inconvenient. My father told me to get out of my hometown before the neighbours noticed. The baby’s father – who had a multi-decade rap sheet that included arson and several flavours of assault – called my residence with threats (e.g., “I’m in my car watching you”) so often that my housemates all skipped exams for fear of leaving the house. I missed my own statistics exam on the day that I gave birth.

After he was born, I cuddled the baby, and named him, and took a lot of photos. And, two days later, when it was time for the foster family to take him home (a requirement in the public adoption process), I changed and dressed him, and kissed him good-bye. It was painful as hell. So, yes, I’m definitely, personally, pro-life.

Practically Pro

I’m also pro-choice. This doesn’t sit well with many people. How can I, a practicing Christian, stand by as others destroy lives so similar to the one that (some say) I so ‘nobly’ chose to protect? How can I reconcile supporting abortion with my life as an adopted person, who, but for a matter of timing – according to my birthmother & close friend – could easily have been aborted herself?

Alternately, what kind of a monster was I not to raise the baby? My favourite shitty comment on that topic came from a pregnant teenager who advised me, to my face, not to have any more children, since a woman who ‘can throw a baby away’ is obviously not mother material. Ouch.

The reality is that my, and my birthmother’s, choices to carry our pregnancies were neither admirable nor despicable. We each made the choice with which we were best able to live, from the options available. Ultimately, it was easier for me to live with the consequences of pregnancy than with those of abortion.

Freedom To

I cannot imagine what it would have been like to undergo a forced abortion, as so many women do, any more than I can imagine being forced to carry the pregnancy, like the traumatized women of the infamous Magdalene laundries. Fortunately, my parents bit their lips and left the choice to me. In the end, I made the choice that best fit with my values. I’ve never regretted it.  But I’m well aware that my values aren’t necessarily ‘ideal,’ nor even all that common, any more.

I’ll strongly recommend certain choices – like vaccination (you’re welcome, Gene Tierney) – but only when there’s a material impact on the greater community. I don’t even recommend Christianity; I say that the stories of Jesus illuminate my path, but I’m equally happy for friends who find their paths in Judaism, or Islam, or Atheism.

It’s the latter position that, I think, led this site’s founder to invite me to be not only a moderator, but also an editor and author. I’m as pro-choice about religion as I am about abortion.

Freedom From

Which is why my first thought was of Twitter, when I heard that my province’s Attorney General is proposing a bill that would create no-protest zones around some abortion clinics. I’m all in favour: as much as I value free speech, I can’t stomach attempts to intimidate people who may be in crisis. That includes shouting and carrying signs; it also includes tweets that cross the line from opinion to injury.

Fortunately, I’m pretty much impervious to injury by tweet. After coping with unplanned pregnancy, stalking and extortion by a seasoned criminal, really horribly-timed job loss, recurrent disabling pain, and a rich tapestry of abuse? Bitch, I’ve seen worse.

Unfortunately, insults and cruelty are endemic on Twitter; particularly so on the subject of religion, from theists and atheists alike. This site’s founder has already written an article on the perils of online bullying, and I won’t try to improve on excellence. I do want to make a few points about this phenomenon, though, as it relates to my story above.

Forti’tude

The first is that, much like the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, the tweetstorms over religion seem to rest on both sides’ convictions of moral superiority. Christians on Twitter are (mostly) out to save souls by promoting religious conversion. Atheists on Twitter are (again, mostly) just as eager to save humanity from the scourge of religion.

People who have the interest and the patience to maintain ongoing, respectful dialogue with both sides are rare.  Oh, and also the fortitude.  Because it’s damned exhausting.

If calling oneself pro-life AND pro-choice is like wearing targets on both sides of a sandwich board, then identifying as an Atheism-positive Christian (or a Muslim-positive Atheist, I’m sure) is like spelling out b-o-m-b h-e-r-e with an arrow pointing to one’s location. Make that two arrows.

Shame(me)ing

The sensation of braving a throng of protesters to get to the abortion clinic is further strengthened by the anti-religion memes that are traded back and forth on Twitter by the bushel. Does anyone measure with bushels, any more? Did you know that I’m easily distracted? Squirrel!

Seriously, though, some of the memes are every bit as skewed and as intended-to-shock as the signs marched about by pro-lifers. Some are thought-provoking; some make me laugh out loud; some are just plain awesome (talking about atheists’ memes, still; pro-lifers don’t seem to be nearly as creative). But I find that at least half are simply maddening, as they’re apparently intended to achieve the same goal as their anti-abortion cousins: deterrence through shock and/or shame.

Space and Kind

If I did decide to have an abortion, I’d have no problem plowing through however many protesters stood in my way. I’m a lot stronger than I look. Just as I have no problem calling bullshit on bad memes – or, more often, offering polite feedback, because I’m hopelessly Canadian. Don’t mistake our courtesy for weakness.

However, not everyone is in a position to knock aside foes like so many ninepins (guess my age now, kids). And so, although it will never happen, I dream about establishing mandatory breathing room online between atheists and theists, like the no-protest zones that Canada, hopefully, will soon create around abortion clinics from sea to sea to sea. A little space to discourage getting overly up-close and personal.

As I said, it will never happen. But that doesn’t stop any of us from behaving as though that space were there, though what that means in practice will vary.

For my part, I scrupulously stick to criticising concepts about religion, and not the character or choices of any person. I also bring down the logic hammer in cases of unfair generalizations, e.g., ‘Christians are’ or ‘Atheists think’. There’s a certain (guilty) satisfaction in out-reasoning people who over-estimate their own rationality.

Landing Stripped

There’s another parallel between the abortion and religion debates, though, and I think it’s even more important. It’s the idea behind the common criticism that pro-life advocates are often really pro-birth. That is, that many pro-lifers simply aim to maximize the number of women who decide against abortion. They’re not necessarily concerned about whether or not those women have the skills and the supports that they need to parent their non-aborted children.

The fact that increasing the supports available to parents might help to bring down the abortion rate doesn’t seem to occur to these folks. After all, if it were easier to deal with unplanned pregnancies, then impressionable teens and the irresponsible poor might have even more children, and qualify for more welfare, and there goes society! It’s the same faulty logic that has led to protests against making contraception easily available, despite the fact that THAT position has long been disproven.

Steel vs. Safe

All of this makes me wonder why on earth there aren’t more atheists pouring their energy into establishing better support systems for people who otherwise have little choice but to depend on religious communities (churches, mosques, temples, etc.) for their emotional and social needs.

For, while I can take a joke about religious belief being a symptom of mental illness, the reality is that religious groups take in a lot of broken people (cue crack about being ‘taken in’).

An old classmate of mine joined a church that’s particularly odious, in my opinion. He’s got a chronic and severe mental illness, and as much as I’d be happy to see him leave that church, I know that they’re providing companionship and stability that he would be lost without. He’s certainly not going to renounce Christianity in response to memes ridiculing the idea of a virgin birth. And it’s nothing short of cruel to pressure him to do so.

Unboxing Days

Which brings me full-circle to the paradoxical existence of a pro-choice, pro-life, atheism-friendly Christian.

If sorting people into discrete little boxes makes you happy, then I will challenge that, politely. I’m certainly not going into a box without a formal protest. And if I see you trying to drag others out  of boxes that they choose to be in – irrespective of their needs, or the perils that they may face on the ‘outside’ – then I will definitely challenge you, and will not apologize for it. (Sorry.)

Because, in the end, we can all do better than slogans and memes; better than shock and humiliation. Even better than cold, hard logic. As one of my very favourite people, ‘Mister’ Fred Rogers, once noted,

“There’s a world of difference between insisting on someone’s doing something and establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it.”

Neighbourhood. Watch.

Here, on the Humanist Codex, we are striving to create an atmosphere where growth can happen, for atheists and theists alike. Whether you’re here to satisfy your curiosity, or to educate others, or for the paper that is due first thing tomorrow, or for some nefarious plan that you’re hatching, I hope that you’ll find what you’re looking for.

And in the process, I hope that you’ll approach everyone here with the same (okay, more than a little cheesy, but also genuine and un-self-conscious) attitude that Fred brought to life, both on- and off-screen:

“Won’t you be my neighbor?”

112
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
25 Comment threads
87 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
The Atheist CodexRon QuebecWarren KincaidDavid MacPhersonRebecca Culling Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Dawn Redden
Commenter
Member

Not a fan. Feels like lip service to me.

Ken Gill
Commenter
Member

If religion wants to stop abortion, they need to be more accepting of single women who get pregnant. The whole routine of shaming or sending them away doesn’t help keep them away from abortion.

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

Not being divine it don’t matter if Jesus existed or not. Why would supporting the Iraq wars mean someone wasn’t a Christian? The Iraq wars were justified. The fact that religious idiots chose to carve each other up after the fall of Saddam doesn’t take away the reasons for intervening.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Warren Kincaid You’re having a hard time answering on the original post? Can you message me your difficulties? We’re working HARD to make it as easy as possible. Important to me.

Eugene S. Kaiser
Commenter
Member

It is amazing that so many don’t know what the Gospel is about !

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

What is it about?

Dawn Redden
Commenter
Member

The Gospel is four distinct yet similar stories written 100 to 200 years after Jesus death. Some believe they were the result of oral stories shared by the Disciples through the years.

Eugene S. Kaiser
Commenter
Member

Read the Bible. KJV. Amen !

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Eugene S. Kaiser I have, that’s what concerns me.comment image

Patricia des Champs
Commenter
Member

Alisa Carnall

Carolyn
Member
Member

Can you still call yourself a Christian if you’re against abortion, but have no problem with the death penalty or supporting a government’s decision to go to war.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

I very much agree. I do not see how anyone who supported the war in Iraq can call themselves Christian. Further, I do not think one could be Christian and have voted for Trump.

Barton Lloyd Clennon
Commenter
Member

Jesus is a literary artifact of Roman Psyops…pro-Roman, pro-Imperial, pro-Slavery, anti-Jew, anti-Judaism…

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Or he was real in a historical real-time way… just like you and I are. Plenty of historical archeological proof out there to look into if you’re into that sort of thing.

Barton Lloyd Clennon
Commenter
Member

There isn’t one ostracon of evidence that a Christ existed…the Gospels are bullshit meant for generating followers not History, Warren…shit, Nazareth is a grave yard in Christ’s supposed time…

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

I’ve little doubt Jesus was real. comment image

David MacPherson
Commenter
Member

In the same vein, why a carpenter and not a King? Why born in a stable and not in a palace? Why gather the lower class of people around him and not the highest in society? Why a man of no wealth and not someone richer than everyone else?
These few simple things don’t make sense if you are trying to ‘con’ people into belief in Jesus. Even today, we’d be more convinced with a show of power and wealth that weakness and poverty. He was real.

Barton Lloyd Clennon
Commenter
Member

Jesus is a literary character…he is as instantiate as Santa Claus…

Ron Smith
Commenter
Member

Send me the book

Rebecca Culling
Commenter
Member

Either Jesus really did rise from the dead and everything He said is true, or He didn’t, and Christians are the biggest fools who have been taken in by the biggest hoax the world has ever known. It’s as simple as that.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

While that’s exactly true… it’s not quite as simple as that. For an Atheist, he must move over to the point of actually being open to the possibility that God created all things and is working it all out in His own way. We are surrounded by God’s reality and are actually a part of it. The resurrection is a part of that reality and a huge part, but not the only part. To admit that humans are different in His reality and somehow fundamentally flawed is a big part too. Not only is the resurrection proof of God having shown up in a human form and suffered what he suffered, it’s the part that puts guilt, innocence and justice in context with pardon and “rehab”. All the pieces of the human puzzle don’t fit together any other way. And we have God’s reality to prove it to us all the time, even if we’ve never heard about (or deny) that guy Jesus.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Warren Kincaid How is “The Resurrection” proof? I mean, if it happened, I’d consider it rather strong proof, but is there evidence it happened?

Rebecca Culling
Commenter
Member

I can only recommend books like ‘Who Moved The Stone?’by Frank Morrison, and ‘The Rage Against God’, by Peter Hitchens, brother of Christopher Hitchins, the author of ‘God Is Not Great’. The former was an atheist when he started his book, and a Christian when he finished it. Incidentally, I have read both ‘God Is Not Great’ and ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins. So no way can anyone accuse me of only reading literature which confirms my own prejudices.

Charles Digiorgi
Commenter
Member

So rather than follow the Jewish Traditions –
that Jesus Condemned – We should follow Christ’s
example in making his Father’s name known.

“Our Father in the heavens,
let your name be sanctified.”
(Matthew 6:9) – BibleGateway

Jesus used his father’s name –
and told us to do the same.

In prayer to his father, Jesus said:

“O righteous Father,
even though the world does not know you,
I know you, and these know that you have sent me.
I made known to them YOUR NAME
and I will continue to make it known…
“I have manifested Your name
to the men whom You gave Me out of the world.”
(John 17:25,26,6)(ESV)-BibleGateway

“I will praise thy name for ever and ever..
Great is Jehovah, and greatly to be praised;
And his greatness is unsearchable.”
(Psalm 145:2,3)(ASV)-BibleGateway

“That men may know that thou,
whose name alone is JEHOVAH,
art the most high over all the earth.”
(Psalm 83:18) (King James Version) -BibleGateway JW.ORG LEARN MORE
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · Yesterday at 1:14pm

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

I’m having a hard time answering her on the original post. So here is my answer to her most pressing rebuttle. Attridge: Would you agree that abortion performed at ANY time prevents the future life and choices of that “homogeneous ball”? Where does God play into all this if you are truly a Christian (no “”s). Does the value He places on us suddenly change as an innocent? An Atheist has no problem with any of this. He’s adrift in a moral sea. He accepts nothing beyond his own logic and reasoning (an Atheists confession in real time). But we answer to the highest authority, and that authority says “You have no right outside of Me”. It doesn’t matter what you think of 1 John. The thread of the entire bible outlines the value God places on the individual person and how that person relates to Him (and the rest of creation). It saddens me when I see “Christians” support abortion in the modern form it’s taken. Defending it just rings hollow.

Russell Jay Haas
Commenter
Member

I GREW UP CHRISTIAN TOO, and I can simplify what I believe. Abortion – Good !!!!! Christianity -BAD !!!! GOT IT?? I ALSO BELIEVE IN RETROACTIVE ABORTION.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

May you never be on the recieving end.

Russell Jay Haas
Commenter
Member

If I feel right about it , I could finish this life, I’d be free from christians that don’t believe in christs’ message

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

I’m not sure you’ll find that sentiment anywhere in the NT.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Attridge has replied to many of your comments, but she’s done so on the Codex, and her comments are not syncing. You can reply there (follow the post) or here. Just her replies not getting synced back.

Andy Schroeder
Commenter
Member

No, no, no, no, no do not attach religious tropes like “codex” to atheism which is exactly NOT anything to do with such TRIPE!

Jay Lindsey
Commenter
Member

If we think God is a man then the abortion issue is unresolvable. But God is woman so SHE decides what to do! God is a vain and jealous woman and Jesus is a rich Jew!

Lee Helms
Commenter
Member

Attridge seems to avoid the worst of the “pro-life” position. Too many people who call themselves “pro-life” are actually anti-sex and/or anti-pleasure. They oppose comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, HPV vaccinations and anything else that would prevent unintended pregnancies or STD transmission because those measures would make recreational sex “safe.” To them, sex is for procreation within marriage only, and sex outside of marriage is SUPPOSED to be dangerous, because it’s a sin, and the pregnancy/disease danger should discourage sinning.

I would like to assure Attridge that Atheist opposition to this theocratic norm is growing, and would be more substantial if we had had more of an opportunity to organize in the past. It has only been during the most recent decades (basically, since the Internet) that Atheists have even been able to FIND each other on a large scale. Give us time to develop the social connections and institutions necessary to establish support systems for others.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

I’d have thought there would be a few more positive responses….

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

Why? Gosh, a theist has some rational moments!

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Edwin Deady I’d think that would be applauded. If more theists were like Attridge, I’d like theism A LOT more. Agree or disagree with her, seems to me she’s more a part of the solution than part of the problem.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

There is only one solution to the “problem”. You all stand in moral quick-sand. One person’s position is equal to any others position…. there is no such thing as free will, so there can be no such thing as true guilt (only guilt feelings)….. human value at its highest is reduced to “potential”. I’m amused by Lee Helms next opening line “the worst of the pro-life position”. As if there’s a bad side to ultimately valuing human life to the point of protecting it from elimination. It seems that no one wants to tackle what the elimination of an innocent human life is really called. Welcome to the modern world. Attridge proves that you don’t have to be called an Atheist to fundamentally think like one. The safety in the abortion debate is that it’s easy to hide… and easy to hide from. The reality of it all is pretty gruesome.

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

Warren Kincaid Let us be clear. Areyou saying that without a god YOU would be a murderer, rapist etc? If not then you must admit that their is a moral compass without religion.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Warren Kincaid I’m not sure there is such a thing as true guilt, not in the sense you mean, any more than freewill. We have psudeo-freewill, just like psudeo-random. And psudeo-guilt, now, come to think of it.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

As an Atheist, you hit the nail right on the head. “No true guilt” means that Hitler killed himself for nothing. He was only “pseudo-guilty” and no court of law has any authority to convict based on that. Think of the money we’ll save.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Edwin Deady Of course there is a moral compass without God. The problem is that it has no focal point (religions can be skewed just like Atheism…. as religions are just mans attempts to define reality). Your morals have just as equal weight as mine without an authority that stands above us all. Here’s where honesty comes in (of course, you have no moral basis for honesty either unless you can point to one that has a unifying principle that covers all of man-kind). In order to have true morals that stand as a universal principle above human beings, we need law that stands above humans….. and truly understands them as well. Where will you get those? Until then ISIS has just as equal moral foundations as you do. The rest of the responses to this post are just noise that proves my point. Everybody is god in there own opinion. Trouble is… how will they get everyone else to accept it?

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

Basically the key is empathy, something missing in sociopaths, Americans who reject a universal health service and many religious poeple.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Warren Kincaid On Courts: Not true. Thats like saying that because computer’s cant generate random numbers, we shouldn’t use random number generators, or because it’s not truly random, you should never flip a coin. But flipping a coin works… because for nearly all intents and purposes it IS random. Same thing with morality. Laws work, moral standards work. For nearly all intents and purposes we do have free will. But just like with randomness, if you get deep enough, it doesn’t quite work as it would appear too.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Warren Kincaid No, we’ve discussed this before: there is an objective moral reality–and I outlined how Sam Harris gets there. A utilitarian model–the greatest good for the greatest number. ISIS objectively does not fit that model, opposing them does. It’s theism that makes morality relative, because if they’re actually praying to the right god, YOU and I are the immoral ones. But you can’t demonstrate that they’re wrong on that front. We can show that they are not maximizing outcomes for people, however.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

OK… so what would be your objective moral reality? What object do you point to? The greatest good for the greatest number of people? Of what value does the least number of people have? Some? None? A graduated scale? Who gets to decide?

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

I’ve thought about your comments here on morality and guilt. If I understand you right, you state that if we think about it deeply (your words), there is no such thing as true guilt. And yet you also state that Atheists such as yourself actually have an objective moral foundation. I’m confused by this. If your morals have an objective foundation why (how) can you regect an objective guilt? They are linked one to another.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Warren Kincaid comment image

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Warren Kincaid How much do you know about randomness in the universe, in a general sense? There is no such thing (we’ll drop strings for a minute). Mountain ranges, weather, which star explodes, which one doesn’t… None of these are random– AT ALL. Now this doesn’t make them predictable in the slightest, and for all intents and purposes we can say and live our lives as if they are random (you and I also move through time at two different speeds, but we can function quite normally ignoring that). They flip a coin at a football game and call it “random”—the fact that it’s not random in the slightest is completely irrelevant… Just as the weather is deterministic, so are we. We have morality, but it doesn’t come from an outside source, it was bread into us, selected for. We learned the value of cooperation, and developed “morality” as a framework to understand and discuss what we intuit, that to survive together some rights (like the right to rape and murder) must be prohibited for a society to function. So we create laws in an effort to create stronger, thriving societies. That morality is innate, that behavior deterministic, has no more bearing on whether or not we can account for behavior in our laws, than the reality of determinism has on a coinflip. Indeed without laws, we’d quickly revert to… Read more »

Ken Croft
Commenter
Member

WHEN RELIGION FEELS LIKE A PAIN IN YOUR ASS!!!

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

It’s probably hemorrhoids.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Abortion is the issue that cuts to the very core of who a person is (and our collective society by force of law). Once one cell migrates into two and a DNA fingerprint is discernable we have a human life to deal with. The only difference from that moment until the individual’s physical death is the number of cells and the length of time. This is an inescapable fact (and held by science). Internally, everyone must deal with that and work it out from there. If there is intrinsic value in any innocent human life because of principle, that principle is universal at its core. In principle, if it is acceptable to perform an abortion, then it was acceptable to perform the “final solution” of the Third Reich (number of cells… length of time). Those who know but look the other way, or those who accept “but not for me” or those who say “You have no right to state a fact until you do something about it” are in the same central moral place as those who have an active part in the elimination of an innocent human being. If you are an Atheist then I guess you can place your own moral standards and values on anything you want, but you have no right to opine about others, because they can craft their own if you can. However…If… Read more »

Gordon E Langer
Commenter
Member

SMH!

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Sorry… don’t know what SMH means. I can make up a few, but they probably aren’t what you mean.

Ron Quebec
Commenter
Member

SMH…”Shake My Hand”

Ron Quebec
Commenter
Member

Well stated….

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Ron Quebec Only the hard truth will motivate a person in the right direction. Gear Heads of the world unite! I’ll let Karl Marx pick up the breakfast tab tomorrow.

Gregg
Member
Member

I find myself in a similar position as the creator of this particular blog post. I am for all intents a moderate atheist who enjoys a good debate. I am pro-life to the extent that I would prefer people to not have abortions and will make that particular view known when it is fortuitous to do so. On the other hand I recognize the right for other people to choose their views on the matter and that in some cases abortion is necessary. That being said I believe in sensible controls being put in place. First I do not recognize that life per se begins at conception. The potential for life begins at conception for sure. Much like someone who is critically injured I view brain activity to be the defining mark. I see no issue with terminating the support of a person who for instance is brain dead, no conscious thought. Looking at the fetus, the time when brain activity actually begins (in any measurable sustained manner) is around the 25th week. This corresponds simply as the third trimester. At this time I would concede that the fetus is truly a life and not just potential life. It is also at this time that I would be willing to concede a moral objection to abortion. Prior to this I believe it is a decision that should be left to… Read more »

Dave Hollings
Commenter
Member

If you hold this view, then why did God create human beings so that around 70% of all pregnancies terminate naturally. I assume that you hold God to be omnipotent, so God deliberately designed humans to be this way. God fails miserably to live up to the moral standard you set and is the world’s greatest abortionist. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneous_abortion_in_humans

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Dave Hollings You assume to much. He doesn’t need our help.

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

How nice to be so self-adsorbed.

Mark Stanton-Huxton
Commenter
Member

Like your comment seems to be ?

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

Explain how, do I maunder on about hypothetical situations with me as the heroine/hero?

John Termaten
Commenter
Member

Pro life people is in fact pro birth, and then it stop’s. If all those pro life people would adopt a child, then we would not have so many foster homes.

Mark Stanton-Huxton
Commenter
Member

You haven’t got a clue have you !

John Termaten
Commenter
Member

I’m glad you do.

Jerry Durham
Commenter
Member

$20 trillion in debt, over half of the households in the USA get some form of government aid, over 40 million on food stamps, etc… But John thinks we don’t care after birth, LOL…

Debbie Scheibly
Commenter
Member

That is not the reason children are in foster home. It takes up to three years to terminate parents rights and sometimes longer. There is to much red tape and parents are given to many chances. You sir are clueless and I have adopted. We are the most given county there is and yet libs will whine we should do more

Zlatko Zvekic
Commenter
Member

Pro-life people are just basically confused bunch thinking that they have some right to say what someone else should do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

John Termaten
Commenter
Member

Debbie Scheibly So why are there so many children in foster care? I also believe you calling pro abortion people are libs. That is ignorant at it worse. This is a women’s right, no matter what political side’s they come from. It would be the same if I would call all anti abortion people whining Christians. but I do not. You should do the same.

David MacPherson
Commenter
Member

The problem I have is not just centred on abortion but our rather strange concept of what constitutes life.
We would agree that if a space probe found a micro organism on another planet, we’d be screaming that life had been found. However, on the other hand, we have accepted, that a foetus of 22 weeks, with all the appearance of a baby, all it’s features and limbs, somehow isn’t. How can that be? Genuinely asking.

David MacPherson
Commenter
Member

Zlatko Zvekic genuine question here……if a friend of yours was self harming themselves, would you say nothing? If they then intended to take their own life, would you say nothing?

Dave Hollings
Commenter
Member

The writer is pro-choice. meaning women should be able to make up their own minds about what to do if the become pregnant. She made her choice based on her principles. That’s fine. There is only a problem when other people try to force their principles on everyone else.

Zlatko Zvekic
Commenter
Member

Some people rationalise before they act and some after, but we all rationalise. My take is that (just like Jesus from the stories) she was too young and messed up to think it all trough so now she is trying to rationalise what happened to her life. If Jesus existed and somehow stayed alive, he’d move to Hawaii or what ever place had nice beaches, good wine, cheese, olive…. I am getting carried away… sorry.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

And she proves my point in all of this. Hers is a human-centric point of view. Even though she wears a tag that says “Christian” she stands exactly where an Atheist does in values and morals. She displays all the modern traits of synthesis. The only difference is that she accepts the notion that in the human DNA is a quest for the “spiritual component” and acts on that urge, while those of the Sam Harris camp flatly deny it. In this post Attridge shows open acceptance of synthesis thought. She’s pro-life (knowing that abortion takes a human life)… but she’s not pro life (it’s OK to eliminate an innocent human life as long as it’s not her own). The typical modern ability of holding two diametrically opposing views at once, and then trying to justify them is clearly discerned in this post. What can I say? You can’t tell who someone is by reading their name tag. You have to listen to their positions.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

I’m not sure if this is a complement, or an objection…

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Neither. It’s an observation. Biblically…. she’s something different than what a Chrisian should be. You have identified her closer as a theist. A Chrisian should see things from a God-centric position as Christians are called on to see God as an existent and communicating being (antually we all should, but that’s another topic). I expect that YOU will see things from a man-centric point of view… you’re an Atheist, how else would you see things? From a Christian, I expect something a little different. Interesting that the center of the discussion is abortion. It’s the most morally defining issue we face in this country today. She (and you) live with the dichotomy verbalized by your own admissions. Again… It’s an observation.

Gordon E Langer
Commenter
Member

scary!

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Warren Kincaid Attridge makes a fair point. Who decides what is a Christian (or an Atheist… Frankly I think that I get to decide that, but I’ll PM her about that later…)? What should a Christian be? Someone who follows Christ? Most follow Peter, not Christ. Must you believe in the Resurrection, or just follow what he taught? Who defines christian?

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Who get’s to decide what is a Christian? 1 john 5:6-12 It only seems fair to let the book that the term is rooted in define the answer. The source is always a good place to start. Verse 10, 11 and 12 get right to the point.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Yours is another example of a “man-centric” point of view. Indeed… who does get to decide what a Christian is? The answer is easy. Not us.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Warren Kincaid Yet when you talk about Attridge, you put Christianity in quotes…. Do you do that with all christians.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Attridge has replied to many of your comments, but she’s done so on the codex, and her comments are not syncing. You can reply there (follow the post) or here. Just her replies not getting synced back.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex I do that with all “Christians” for your sake. There seem to be so many kinds and you seem to agree. I’ll check your post about her on your official site. I didn’t know that it doesn’t “synce”.

The Humanist Codex
Admin
Member

Well the article is above (of course), but her replies are going there, not coming back….

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

I didn’t have much luck replying to her article site… but I’m not the most computer savy guy in the world. No problem.