michael^3 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

michael^3 wrote:The waiting time is 24 hours which is not crazy for a decision that is irreversible and that you may regret.

What's "irreversible" about an abortion? If you decide you wanted to be pregnant after all, get pregnant.

Many women regret their abortion. Postabortion regret is much more common than postnatal regret.

Kuia wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

Many women regret their abortion. Postabortion regret is much more common than postnatal regret.

Many women do not regret their abortion.
Post abortion non-regret is much more common than postnatal non-regret.

michael^3 wrote:

Teague wrote:Then there should be no such thing as "abortion clinics" and instead, these procedures should be done at a hospital.

Why do we have clinics dedicated to abortions, again?

Because most health professionals recognize the absurdity of saving lives in one room and destroying it in the next.

michael^3 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

It shows that fertility rate for the lowest income group is almost twice that of the highest. Doesn't seem like the conspiracy to "eradicate the poor" thru abortion is having much effect.

A fertility that is twice as high does not mean it is sufficient to sustain the group, as life is much more hazardous for the poor group.

Just look at the odds of being shot by a cop if you belong to the wrong group.

Why would you want to sustain poverty?

I'd rather "sustain" poverty than encourage poor people to gradually extinct themselves through abortion.

michael^3 wrote:

Teague wrote:For every baby born, one is naturally aborted. It seems our species is having more abortions than black people. Yet when I pointed out this natural abortion rate several pages ago, you dismissed it with a hand wave and were clearly unconcerned about this rate that god deems necessary (and proving in this fantasy realm that fetus' are nothing special, either) to fail - what efforts are you making to ensure that every single fetus is saved?

Atheists who cannot shut up about god

Scot Dutchy wrote:

The Vatican announced on Friday the results of a papal investigation of the concept of limbo. Church doctrine now states that unbaptized babies can go to heaven instead of getting stuck somewhere between heaven and hell. If limbo doesn't exist, what happened to everyone who was supposed to have been there already?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/04/the_end_of_limbo.html

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

The Vatican announced on Friday the results of a papal investigation of the concept of limbo. Church doctrine now states that unbaptized babies can go to heaven instead of getting stuck somewhere between heaven and hell. If limbo doesn't exist, what happened to everyone who was supposed to have been there already?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/04/the_end_of_limbo.html

Sounds like Christians should be positively lining up to abort their fetuses now, since it sends them directly to Heaven. I wonder when the onset of original sin is? Standing up? Talking?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:Oh, I may have misunderstood this bit. Glad to see that they get to pretend their unbaptized babies are in heaven rather than hell, though. Well, sort of glad. It probably would have helped underscore how bloody awful their god is if the babies were simply sent directly to hell.

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).

What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

Shrunk wrote:
As I read that, what it effectively says is: If we go by the rules as God has revealed them, unbaptized infants go straight to hell. But that would be a real asshole move, wouldn't it? Since God presumably does not want to be seen as an asshole, he will surely find some loophole to spare the infants eternal torture. At least, we hope so."

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
As I read that, what it effectively says is: If we go by the rules as God has revealed them, unbaptized infants go straight to hell. But that would be a real asshole move, wouldn't it? Since God presumably does not want to be seen as an asshole, he will surely find some loophole to spare the infants eternal torture. At least, we hope so."

My initial understanding was more like this. That unbaptized kids went straight to hell.

If ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception, we could be winding up with most souls going to hell before even getting a chance to have been born due simply to the natural rate of spontaneous abortion. Which would basically mean that the Christian god intentionally created a world in which His biological designs ensured that the majority of his beloved children had NO CHOICE but to burn in fire forever.

Bit problematic, that.

Shrunk wrote:

Kuia wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

Many women regret their abortion. Postabortion regret is much more common than postnatal regret.

Many women do not regret their abortion.
Post abortion non-regret is much more common than postnatal non-regret.

And the few cases of "post abortion regret" that have been documented are entirely due to religious fanatics lying to women and telling them they killed a baby.

No, I have no evidence to support that. It's just true, that's all. That's how it works, right michael?

Two years postabortion, 301 (72%) of 418 women were satisfied with their decision; 306 (69%) of 441 said they would have the abortion again

michael^3 wrote:
According to this study, only 70% of women who have an abortion would have the abortion again. This to me suggest that the decision for abortion is taken too fast.

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article ... eid=481643

Two years postabortion, 301 (72%) of 418 women were satisfied with their decision; 306 (69%) of 441 said they would have the abortion again