deBeauxOs of Birth Pangs was not too happy with my post on Frances Kissling's column which said that fetuses might be happy to die for their mothers.
Yet Canada’s ubiquitous Blob Blogger, Babbling Bellicose Wingnut dismissed her response since it was not the Right answer. BBBBW “knows” what it is, though. How can she “know”? … Well, her religious dogma TELLS her so.
How can I "know"? How could I possibly know what a human being might want? Gee. Ya think it might have something to do with a common human nature that is observable by any person, religious or not?
For instance, what if your mother had killed you as a newborn? Would you have jumped at the chance to die for your mother?
Gee, it couldn't possibly be that a religious person might know something that non-religious people could also know. Can't be.
Religious fanatics who believe that human beings walked with dinosaurs and maintain that every word in the bible is true, cannot envisage any reality that is different from that which is defined by their church clerics.
Yeah, because people who hold to conservative religious faith are all uniformly stupid and uneducated. I guess this is all part of the feminist hypocrisy: it's okay to vehicle false stereotypes and prejudice when they do it.
When Kathy Shaidle says that Arabs are a bunch of violent retards, well that's racist and wrong. When deBeauxOs says that religious pro-lifers are a bunch of retards (and violent ones at that-- I'm sure they'd agree) well, that's okay. Even if they're educated, have PhD's and make their arguments on reason alone in a far more coherent and articulate fashion than feminists.
Of course fetus fetishists would hate the thought of their non-existence because religious doctrine TELLS them that,
Or maybe it has to do with the universal will to live that most people have, whether or not they are religious.
even when each and every one of them was a mere clump of cells dividing, they were more important than the woman giving them life.
Yeah, because asserting the right to life makes you more important than anyone else. Oh, and here are some pictures of the "clumps of cells" she's talking about:
Some "clump of cells" huh? Pretty funny "clump of cells"-- given that he has a head, face, body and limbs.
But only religious people say ignorant things. Feminists never spew propaganda or fallacious reasoning. Ever.
Thus, fed by this egocentric perspective, abortion criminalizers will self-righteously label women who choose to terminate a pregnancy ’selfish’.
Yeah, wanting to live is really "egocentric". Children should want to die for their mothers. That's not an egocentric perspective at all.
BBBBW’s inability to understand Kissling’s answer is a product of her knee-jerk obedience to religious ideology. Her thought processes are a literal extension of established Church doctrine. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler are all the same, because her religious dogma tells her so.
Yeah, reason and science couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. The fact that a zygote and a newborn are both individuals of the species homo sapiens couldn't possibly have anything to do with the notion that they're ontologically the same thing. The idea that all humans are created equal-- a belief possessed by religious and non-religious people alike-- couldn't possibly have anything to do with the belief in the equality of the unborn child.
When you dismiss ideas as "religious"-- even when they can be soundly defended on a philosophical basis-- you don't have to debate them or defend your own logic. It's a neat trick.
They're all for my "religion" when it concords with their own agenda. When it doesn't, it's religious "fanaticism".
But they are attempting to bully everyone with the force of their religious rules, through proposed legislation such as private members’ Bills: C-484 and C-537.
Yeah, because one has to be a religious "nutcase" to think that killing a fetus should be a crime, or that medical personnel shouldn't have to do abortions. It's okay for them to impose their morals.
Fundamentalist religious organizations also promote and glorify ‘motherhood’, when it advances their goals. But their respect is only awarded to those who exemplify a specific, dogma-sanctioned type of mother.
As opposed to feminists, who only respect those who live up to their dogma-sanctioned feminist ideal of motherhood.
See, feminists don't see themselves as dogmatists. They're "open" and "tolerant". Even when they're not.
For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca