The British Humanist Association has started adverts on buses in several different UK towns and cities with a slogan, ""There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." It will also be featued on the Tube (the underground train network in London).
"The British Humanist Association said the buses carrying the slogan outside London would operate in Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh, York, Leeds, Newcastle, Dundee, Sheffield, Coventry, Devon, Liverpool, Wolverhampton, Swansea, Newport, Rhondda, Bristol, Southampton, and Aberdeen.
Four posters featuring quotations from the likes of Douglas Adams, Albert Einstein, and Katharine Hepburn will also be placed at 1,000 London Underground locations."
That's cool. Are all people in London that mellow? Wish it was like that in America. Here they would be protesting and probably like trying to push the bus over or something. lol.
yeah -- it's totally cool to have a brain in the UK, and to be seen to be using it in public, too. There is no question about teaching science in the schools, either, as no one would dream of questioning fact, the way that an alarming amount of Americans do by wanting to teach myth and opinion in science courses, instead of reality. Thanks, LondonGirl, for posting this -- quite cheered me up!
That whole anti-Darwinism thing bemuses me, to be honest.
It is simple. If you believe the bible as a literal truth, which some do. i.e. - there was actually an Adam and and Eve who were made from a handful of dust, and there was an actual flood that god caused because people were being wicked - evolution and all the other sciences prove this is false.
Therefore your faith is proven wrong and you must accept that the bible is a fairy tale and there is no such thing as god. Oops....
Therefore the theory of evolution must be a lie.
Along with all the other sciences that state that the earth is old.
There are people on these forums who keep their children at home to homeschool them to prevent them from learning genuine science at school and make sure they grow up with a distorted view that agrees with what it says in the bible......
Watch the first video in this post -
I haven't heard much fuss about it. In fact, my mother's PCC ( the Parish Parochial Council, that runs a parish church) thought it was great, because it would encourage people to think about faith.
I guarantee the British Humanist society wouldn't dare replace the word God with "Allah."
The message is also going to run on buses in Madrid and Barcelona. To counter, an Evangelist group off a city near Madrid are going to run their own adds, "God exists, enjoy your life in Christ". Bound to be an interesting "campaing" :-)
I saw something in the papers about those ads, and it made me smile. My very first thought was, I bet they won't be running those ads on buses in America!
Incidentally, and on a more serious note that my last post, it is obvious that the ads will either make people smile, or reaffirm their faith, or make them wonder. All are Very Good Things -- God knows we could all use a smile or two, and any exercise of the brain is A Very Good Thing. So I'd say it's a win-win situation for both believers and atheists, wouldn't you? No one is going to have her mind changed by an ad on the bus or on the Underground -- if they did, I'd be drinking a lot of Johnny Walker, wearing Gap clothes, and not spitting on the bus (oh, wait a minute -- they've probably taken those ones done by now -- that was a memory from childhood).
Free speech is to be valued and encouraged, even when we don't agree with the message. I was recently "ejected" from an outdoor meeting by campus security (where the new college mascot was being unveiled) because I complained loudly that the cafe was shut for this nonsense and I wanted some lunch. I am very much afraid that America might take some time to recover the idea that it's ok if someone else thinks differently than you do: live and let live might be a more Christian approach, instead of "live and don't let others live the way they want to."
So thanks, LondonGirl, for posting this, and for reminding us that we are not hurt by other people's ideas, and that we should never allow other people's ideas NOT to be heard or seen, as it reduces us in spirit, and only rankles the others to anger.
Freedomof speech working.
Nothing really changes. The schism between faith(s) and non-faith will go on till the end. every individual has to be accountable for their own belief (position).
I doubt any believers will all of a sudden flock to the "atheist" camp, (or vice-versa). Ads on busses or anywhare else don't "produce" christians either.
That is so cool. We had something like that here posted in front of some courthouse ((I forget where) along with all the religious monuments, and the thing was taken down by the city. It turned into a big lawsuit/hubub with all the right wing pundits ranting about the end of civilization because atheists were posting stuff around religious monuments--the atheist point of view being that the first amendment is more on their side--which it is, of course.
The U.S. is turning into quite the broken down outhouse, both intellectually and practically speaking. Soon we will all be totally retarded and just flinging poop at each other, while the very rich cloister themselves away from us.
Welcome to the monkey house.
Now now, Pam, surely it's not so bad? Oh heck, maybe it is!! Laugh!
The campaign starts on Monday here and already tons of ink of the virtual and real variety have been dropped on the issue, it's a real buzz round here, which I find valuable because, if nothing else, it makes people think and discuss the issue. It seems it's OK to have a brain in Spain, too, and to be seen using it in public! :-P
PS: I hate that I can't watch clips from my laptop!
Oh, maybe I'm being an eensy bit melomodramatic.
It does feel like a monkey house sometimes though. The US is very polarized, and it often feels to me like all the two sides do is throw poo at each other. You see that in these forums all the time in the Christians versus the [perceived] lions thingie...
I hope Obama can cut through that division. He's certainly trying hard to represent all of us, both sides, everybody. I really admire him for that. I hope he can.
I think I'm sometimes bemused by the absolute and passionate divides in America which aren't much of an issue here. Gun control, abortion, religion, they just aren't that important in politcal and ethical debate in the UK.
That's because they are really kind of 'smoke' issues. Designed to divide and divert attention from the real issues we sincerely need to be thinking about. And those who debate these will debate them ad infinitum... Sigh..
These are hardly "smoke screen issues." Each of the three issues mentioned implicate interpretations of the 1st, 2nd and 14th Amendments--amendments which are fundamental to our understanding of civil liberties, the separation of powers and the very fabric of our democracy. These issues are rightfully debated ad infinitum and the way these debates are resolved have significant further consequences beyond just the ownership of guns, freedom of worship or the right to dismember fetuses--and it would be worrisome indeed if they weren't debated ad infinitum. Then we know tyrrany has arrived.
And I still say they are smoke screen issues. High school level issues, even, despite your inculcation of the 1st, 2nd, and 14th amendments. Meaning a couple things: Other civilized nations, as Londongirl indicates, have figured them out already. It isn't about the fundamentals of democracy, it is about a democracy and a nation in adolescence. Your saying that there are further consequences surrounding these 'front issues' is just further proof that they are smoke. I never said there was no fire.
You will find the same hacks (not calling anyone out personally) debating the same issues over and over again in the same forums, i.e. After a time, an intelligent person has to ask why that is. You have to look at reasons like the psychology of the individual that is behind such vehement extremist views on either side of the aisle. You also have to ask yourself what greater purpose this kind of chasm-like division serves any powers that be (because there are those, you know--maybe you haven't come across any of it yet).
And I must say, to stir your interests in these smoke screen issues-- lol -- I find it almost humorous that you and your promotion of un-serious (uh, cheap seduction, objectification and vapid sex) male/female relationships would actually be pro-life. If I remember from my Catholic catechism, doesn't the sex act have to carry the weight that life is always a possibility? And tell, me, with your very experienced background, does that edict actually always meet with real life expectations, physiology, and just plain physics, at times?
Also, lol, why aren't you out on a date? It's Sat. night. (I have an excuse--I'm old, over 30, a god-awful feminist, omg, and my boyfriend is in TX on business.)
"Other civilized nations, as Londongirl indicates, have figured them out already. It isn't about the fundamentals of democracy, it is about a democracy and a nation in adolescence
It is ludicrous...1. to even suggest that as compared to Europe, our nation is an adolescent democracy when in fact we rescued the continent from the darkest days of fascism and marxism. What Europe in the 18th century only dreamt politically, the United States made a reality. If we must use such metaphors, I would sooner call Europe a continent in the throws of decrepitude--a veritable mausoleum of Western Culture--what's left of it! 2. depriving law-abiding citizens of firearms as a solution to what issue? as if this issue even has only one universal solution.
I don't categorize myself as "pro-life" and my poltical beliefs on this matter are not informed by theology at all. I categorize myself as a Constitutionalist who believes only state legislatures have the right to speak on the abortion issue, not the Supreme Court with its fabricated, activist interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The formulators of the 14th did not intend, and indeed would be outraged to see how the Supreme Court and Congress are usurping powers reserved by the Founders to state gov'ts to regulate "the health, safety and morals" of its citizens. But no! it's the height of civilized society to disregard the Constitution and have a few justices decree from on high whatever fanciful social agenda catches their fancy--so long as every microscopic country in Europe approves.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This means that any power not expressly given to the Federal gov't belongs to the State gov'ts. Where does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the right to legislate on matters pertaining to the health and morals of the citizens of the United States? hmm? Where does it say in the Constitution that if the Netherlands and Switzland "resolve an issue" in a certain way, the United States should take notice...simply ludicrous.
No, they have not made gun control a universal. There are many proposals on the table, such as creating an urban set of rules vs. a rural set of rules for the ownership of guns--somewhat championed (at least in the presidential debates) by our new 'liberal' President Obama.
Nick is really going for a deep division between our liberals and conservatives here, when those looking at the actual argument know it is more amorphous.
Nick, like many "conservatives," just seems scared of everything. He is not in favor of abortion although he favors "traditional values," such as casual pre-marital sex.
And abortion is "dismembering fetuses."
Unless you use a gun in which case it is "a right to bear arms," although he also asks that "god bless America.," I get confused just reading this rubbish. Guess he just likes to stir things up. Many "conservatives," like to do that, apparently. It is a family value I guess......
I wouldn't want to live in his head. Must be hell.
I appreciate your points on the US Constitution...it is always interesting to see the response from others when it comes to points about the Constitution...they do seem to mostly respond to the issues, not to the issues about the original conception of the Constitution.
I am no big legal person, but I do believe the federal gov't taking over the state gov't's decision making is an important issue...the people must have their vote and not be mandated to. Big brother government is not my idea of democracy. neither is the US being more like Europe my idea of the New World
as far as the advertizements in Europe go, as along as they give equal use to believers, and show that equality in those public adverts, it is ok by me.
the biggest problem I see people making anywhere, be it the US or Eur. or whereever, is that both sides tend to claim that the other is doing to them what they claim they are not doing to the other
Other countries manage not to be tyrannies and not to obsess about these issues, though?
Thing is, it really is NOT about Christianity. I think Jesus Christ would be ashamed and mad at the 'Christianists' of today and run around ripping down their temples and their Big TV money lending tables.
One of the cool things about Obama is that he's an intellectual, but he's not afraid to use some strong emotional language and metaphor to gather people in. More power to him.
I like smart people! Especially well-balanced, humble, decent smart people.
Lita, I agree totally. I like that word "Christianists"--Because yes, yes, they are NOT Christians, not really, It's like they don't even read the Bible they're always thumping the rest of us over the head with.
Maybe Obama will finally make it cool for American's to think and speak in complete sentences again. That would be awesome.
Laugh! Every time I show up to follow this little debate here I'm cracked up at the images you paint, Pam!
See, I know for a fact that there are some Americans that speak in complete sentences, quite a few on them, really! You guys aren't so bad, don't be so harsh on yourselves! Laugh!
Reminds me of the Genesis song about a TV evangelist.
Oh, so, , we are back to bold letters again. Is that for emphasis?
Smoke, further, lawyerly smoke. "Mutilating fetuses" is a pretty strong image, Nick. Methinks from this, it NOT just a constitutional issue to you. Methinks it is a 'conservative stance' with you--and further, not that thought out.
Look, this might help you. Sincerely. In the future, even for yer career. Cuz what is law, really, but language? Meaning, like, I could do it, too, if I wanted (except not the public speaking part! Lol!). But sincerely, do you ever look at your own phrasing or other people's phrasing even in writing? You should, as it is often a dead tell in the poker game of debate. IE, I didn't have to look up Knol's hubs or writing in the other forum there to know he's quite a bit older than both of us.
Methinks also, you have had this 'Europe is the decrepit land of socialists,' for lack of a better term, debate, before. It has that well sung verse type feel to it, and wasn't my specific thought, either. And where the hell did the fire arms debate come in--did you mistake me for some other liberal? lol
Anyway-- stirring you up is just further proof of my point. You realize that is what I was demonstrating, right?
Hmmm. You live in Brooklyn or Staten Island, your parents are conservative, you might even be living at home while in law school (?) Poor thing... Don't think you had a date. That's OK, you are cute when you are angry--someone is bound to see this. (I know, it is bad of me, objectifying when I should be engaged in 'serious' lol debate.) BTW, you know you really should change that "alla" on your profile thing to 'a la,' as in the French rather than having it sound like the God of the Muslims.
The same performance....when you have no substantive response, you focus on me. Try again.
Ha! Ha! (my first try appeared in the wrong place)
Temprarily returning to the seed post of the thread - note the inclusion of the word 'probably'. This is a Rationalist statement, not an Atheist one. And the Humanist Society is also a Rationalist body with a pedigree going right back to, wait for it, The Age of Reason. That same Age of Reason that spawned the Founding Fathers of the US.
To anyone still unsure of the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism, of the special place of Rationality within the Agnostic camp, and of the revolution in understanding of the nature of Knowledge that came about in the early 20th Century (and has still to filter through in some quarters) - may I humbly recommend http://hubpages.com/hub/Believers-Agnostics-Atheists
The "probably" there makes all the difference -- it's been literally copied into the Spanish advert, and yes, that makes it an agnostic afformation rather than an atheist one, which ought to have been "There's no god".
This made for lively conversation yesterday over beers and tapas, half the bar was pitching in
I've been wondering about this since the first posting:
"Four posters featuring quotations from the likes of Douglas Adams, Albert Einstein, and Katharine Hepburn will also be placed at 1,000 London Underground locations."
"the likes of Douglas Adams, Albert Einstein, and Katherine Hepburn"?
"the likes of"?
suggests reprobate thug-worshiping gang members, not some of the finest minds, morals, and integrity (and legs -- man, did Douglas Adams ever have great legs) of the 20th century.
LondonGirl, where was the article you were quoting from? It's hilarious.
That is "the likes of" as in "famous, well spoken atheists."
I was wondering about it too. 1,000 four posters? They'll have to scour all the antique shops in London to find that number of old beds...
you are TOO funny I can't hardly type for laughing. .
thank you, I needed that.
It's from the BBC website:
I followed links from the BBC pages to the Humanist association, and that led me to an article about the secularization (or secularisation, ) of the UK being a positive goal. I'm jumping around from topic to topic, I know (I'd be ADD if I could remember where I left the pamphlet), but it would seem to me that the secularization of the UK would be a very good goal -- since there is a growing Muslim and Atheist population in the British Isles. Having grown up in Belfast, I would advocate secularism -- which, incidentally, the Archbishop of Canterbury does appear to be in favor of, too (although not by next Tuesday, or any time soon -- maybe after he retires?).
BS... Mr. Nick. You amuse me, honestly. I actually have fun watching these things, and I'd say about 3/4 of what I have formulated about you is true. (It isn't?)
And I did say up above, that a person begins to wonder about the psychology of those who would debate ad infinitum? That stoking these divisions holds a greater interest than just the debate themselves? Maybe my substance was just on another (I hesitate to say higher) level from yours. You could also take some of what I have suggested and use it to your advantage, if you weren't so confident that your law studies makes you superior, lol, that is all over your language, too. (Also, I was tired and wanted to go to bed, maybe.)
And, if you want a full-on debate of Roe v. Wade, then I invite you to it.... (Don't know if this is the best place for it.)
I thought it best I work that one out early, on a personal level. You, know, the personal is political, and women having a lot more at stake and all--yes, I do have a tendency to mix the two in answers to your smoke. I hope your knowledge of the common law is as good on this one as it is on other things.
I welcome the opportunity to repond to your substantive comments on this matter. If you feel the forum is not an adequate place for such a debate, I invite you to write a hub for me and others to respond to. It will be a "Battle of the Hubs"...may the best man win.
Hmmm, Lita currently at 94. Nickny at 83. My money's on the best (wo)man.
The philosopher speaks the unadorned, unpopular truth.
Very unfortunate juxtaposition - unadorned, unpopular - I thought lawyers were supposed to use language effectively.
You mean the best woman. There is no way you will win on this issue. Of that, I am supremely confident.
And yes, I am well versed in Privacy "jurisprudence" (hesitating to call it such)...I suffered through over six months of it in one of the most liberal law schools in the United States. Roe v. Wade, incidentally, is not point of departure for any series discussion on the Right to Privacy--it's a symbolic sound byte used by the media for mass consumption. Privacy jurisprudence now starts with Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which overruled the artificial trimester distinction made in Roe.
Sigh. Roe V. Wade is what most are familiar with as far as far as the abortion debate.
I will begin with ancient Egypt, British and other common law and go into landmark US cases. Legalities will NOT be the entirety of the argument, however, because obviously, this is an issue that spans many institutional and ethical realms.
Smoke, smoke, smoke. LOL.
It's OK! I actually have fun arguing, and imagine this is not bad practice for you.. You know I was not making it up that one of my books is in the yale law library.
You will not win, ha!
I do have to ask, however, what propells someone to state the phrase, "mutilated fetuses?"
Not when you uttered that statement, you didn't. Facts are malleable, also, as you well know.
That's for the jury, or the finder of fact, to decide. Present your case.
If you disapprove of abortions don't have one! Quit trying to impose your morality on the country. As I recall you're an opponent of gun control. We had more than 300 gun homicides in Detroit in 2007 and quite a few accidental deaths and injuries from handguns because we are unable to pass effective gun control laws or enforce the law that are on the books. Seems to me that your position on gun "rights" is inconsistent with your support of fetal "rights." I don't recall the third issue you raised.
Religion--Why not let each person practice their own religion while respecting the religions or lack there of of others and without trying continually to impose their views on everyone else?
But don't you see, that is exactly what is being done...claiming that those that don't like abortion are imposing their views? Are they not trying to impose their views for abortion?
Roe V Wade imposed a particular moral view on the entire population...it should be up to the population to decide within their own states...not big brother mandated.
Any particular reason why you believe this, Jewel? Other than Nick's been showing off his constitutional knowledge? lol Which doesn't really connect the dots broadly, anyway?
But that's it for me, I've got some writing to do...
I try to be what I consider a centrist in as many situations as possible, because the two sided opposition gets nowhere.
I truly believe that the people should be making the decisions for their own states on moral issues. My idea of democracy is majority rules, with a centrist (my limited understanding definition) approach when necessary on morality issues. The Supreme court mandating abortion as legal is not the people voting their choice on the issue.
I think it is a great stance...but I know it needs continual work to accomplish why is it so hard for people to be unbiased? well I think it is because we are all in a state of learning and need to not act like we know it all. I know I don't know it all, but do my best to be confident in knowing that I don't know it all...not everyone can do that. It has to resort to name calling and blaming and the like. We are all growing...hopefully
This makes no sense whatsoever. You have made your feelings plain in other discussions - you believe abortion should be illegal.
Like the other Cristian conservatives. Oddly enough, your own "personal striving to be christ," has led you to the point where you have exactly the same "family values," as they do. God blessing your troops, abortion should be illegal, the war in Iraq is a good thing.....
How is letting a few backward states being allowed to write their own laws to make "mutilating fetuses" illegal "the people voting their choice"?
I mean come on - what if one town votes to allow women to make their own choice and one town 10 miles up the road decides women should not be allowed to have an abortion?
Majority rule until it disagrees with your stance, then reduce it down geographically until it does?
as usual Mark, you do your best to define me in your limited terms. but your definition does not fit me. I can have a sincere stance on an issue and still work with others on understanding and finding common ground.
Even if majority ruled in the total of the entire population of a state, there should still be respect for another's beliefs and a common ground in meeting the needs of all.
ie...if abortion was voted in by the majority in a state....that does not make one side right and the other wrong. There would still need to be avenues to protect rights and beliefs of all.
As usual sj - you have defined yourself pretty well, and strangely enough you fit into exactly the same box as the other conservatives. Kidding yourself that you do not is rather a waste of time and speaks volumes to your strong denial skills..
Please do tell me where the common ground is here. I believe women should have the right to choose an abortion or not. You believe abortion is wrong and should be illegal.
Or are you suggesting that "respecting another's beliefs" should apply here?
Abortion should be illegal - except where the person believes they should be allowed to have an abortion.....
Gun control laws only deprive law abiding citizens of guns, not those who already have a disposition to commit crime. Accidental gun deaths are a risk that ones must assume--just as accidental deaths in cars and planes don't warrant a ban on these items. Just as the risk of letting the guilty go free on occasion, in the name of due process, doesn't warrant the elimination of due process.
I'm gonna let you duel it out here with the senior hubpage liberals, . As I said, ad infinitum.... I will come up with a hub case for freedom of choice, the legal arguments, and abortion history, et al.
As for' fact finders', we will come down to the same old duality--although those of liberal views mostly outweigh others here at hubpages, so the jury is ultimately stacked against you, I must say, in good conscience.
A meta-analysis says, however, that if free choice and abortion 'rights' was supported by a long history and broad common law previously, and by most western civilized nations currently, that there is no way the U.S. will ever turn it in the long run, whether that be through conservative activists acting through state governments or what have you.
Very few abortions involve any kind of mutilation. Most are in the early weeks, and many are chemically-induced miscarriages.
Right-ohhhh, so LondonGirl starts with a different, yes DIFERENTE, advert campaign, but this ends up being the same old same old. So I guess that proves I just gotta stay away from the forums! Laugh!
No offense meant, anyone! Carry one, by all means. ((Like you need my permission! *snort*)) Before I quit this forum for good: Lita, Mark, Ralph, I'm kinda rooting for you, GOOD LUCK! Laugh!
"Why not let each person practice..."
How's anybody goin' to flirt with anybody then.
"Roe V Wade imposed a particular moral view on the entire population...it should be up to the population to decide within their own states...not big brother mandated."
What's up with that. That is what Roe does. It took the law from no abortion, to you get to choose abortion either way your choice. Big sister mandated.
It's all about identity politics, which I hope is fading away in the U.S.
I mean, if you need politics to give yourself an identity, that's sad. That's what your name is for.
You wouldn't know it from Hub Pages, but outside of these forums there does seem to be a consensus building among Americans that has to do with just dealing with our real problems and forgoing all the stupid rhetoric. I'm with Deeds--If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. It's that simple. Abortion is a good example of what I'm talking about though, because in truth, there is consensus among Americans on abortion. There is very little real controversy. The vast majority of Americans believe abortion is wrong but that it has to be available on demand because the choice belongs to the woman carrying the fetus and to her alone. That is the overwhelming mainstream view, which proves that lots of Americans are capable of having complex thoughts and negotiating difficult issues, in spite of how the internet feels.
The nutcases have had lots of attention for the past decade or so. That is about to change, as we have real problems now that won't be solved by throwing inflated sentences around. That kind of talk is about to become so last year.
Bingo! That last paragraph. I'm almost always with Pam,
calling people nutcases is not conducive to working things out..its judgment of another...just as I said, one side claims the other is doing something that they themselves are doing also.
How are those that are sincere in their stance, even though they may seem radical to the other side, wrong? (in most cases) Obviously, the other side does not understand the other. We need to be looking for understanding and common ground, not just continual opposition and beating each others heads together.
'scuse the snippage here:
I kinda thought that, yeah? But it's good to hear it from you American, you! All is not lost, then! It's like a friend of mine said: there is intelligent life in the universe, some of it resides in this planet! Laugh!
Unbiased doesn't mean you have no opinion or are released from the responsibility to judge a situation and make a decision. Saying nothing and thinking nothing is not 'unbiased', it's just annoying.
I do think many of the people with the loudest voices are nutcases. I'm not looking for a group hug in these matters, I'm looking for people who want to actually solve problems. People who just want to say extreme things for effect strike me as more than a little bit unbalanced.
I made it my specific cause to understand the issues surrounding freedom of choice when I was still a young college student. I read about it quite extensively--through lots of history and the cases here in the U.S. itself.
I am confident of that research and satisfied on a personal level to support a case for freedom of choice. Note the phrase 'freedom of choice."
I also consider, as I said, this something of a smoke screen issue or 'nut's' issue.
shall we start another thread on this freedom of choice issue ?
Perhaps we should. It's not my favorite topic for discussion, but that means that I don't pay it enough attention. I have spent years mulling over this one, and given the weight of evidence garnered from real desire to be well informed, I have concluded (or rather, reaffirmed a long-held opinion) that freedom of choice is a vital (and I use that word deliberately) component of civil rights and civil liberties.
so we have hijacked another thread ooops
If anyone wants to continue, we can start another thread on some aspect we have gone off on ...
Not for me... I believe in well-presented research, so a hub is a better format idea.
Maybe invite Nick or other conservatives, so I can get a sense of how he's going to level this at me... I have a feeling his strength is in 'attacking,' so knowing more of how you all will do this will help, lol.
funnily enough, I have written such a hub!
Yes, Londongirl presents in a very personal and individualized way--which may be better than all the philosophy/legality regarding the topic--a case for freedom of choice.
Maybe Nick wants to respond to her hub?
http://hubpages.com/hub/Is-abortion-eve … here-it-is
I meant a forum thread is not the best choice for me to present a case for freedom of choice. And yes, I get a feel for how you think. That wasn't any sort of a challenge.
Not sure what you mean about "not for me" : but as far as getting any kind of typical conservative understanding from me, I am afraid that won't work. I believe in reincarnation and other things that are not typically considered "the right wing perspective".
A tolerant society where all religions could live side by side in harmony. Now that's a great aim. If we could do away with all division and religious friction at a single stroke, how wonderful would that be!
well. . . maybe we could start small, just with folk not killing each other?
You remind me of the John Lennon song "Imagine":
No, I'm absolutely serious in recommending he respond to this. It IS a real case, not pie-in-the-sky philosophy and history which I'm sure we can both dish.
I believe abortion is a very, very personal issue. That's why the way you wrote it is so good. That's why it is a legal issue that must be dealt with by more than one's stance and 'lawyerly' truths.
Lita- Even I have some specific views about abortion but in the light of Roe Vs Wade case can you write a hub on this subject http://hubpages.com/request/9496/best
P.S: Also if Mr.Nick wants to have an intellectual debate then he can also write on the same subject.
You are making it too fair, CW, . Writing them both at once. I think he counted on me writing first so he could attack....
Thing is, it may take me a little longer these days, as I am doing a lot of writing for my job at the moment.
Actually, why should a man have anything to say about a woman's right to an abortion?
In the case of my own ectopic pregnancy, it was definitely something that the man in question was asked to say a lot about!
Well, there are two aspects to involvement by men--in the legislature and in the courts and prospective fathers. My comment went to legislative and legal involvement as in the United States where, as I recall the landmark Rowe v. Wade decision was decided by an all male U.S. Supreme Court and in many states by legislatures composed mostly of men.
The involvement of fathers is appropriate of course if they are husbands or individuals involved in a significant relationship with the woman. If not, in my opinion, there is no reason for involvement of the father unless, of course, the woman decides to have the child in which case she's entitled to child support payments.
As St. Thomas Aquinas said. "Seldom affirm. Never deny. Always distinguish."
I can do lawyerly truths too, at least I hope I can! I'm a barrister.....
Holy Cow! Excuse my highly American outburst....An honest to God British lawyer all versed in common law both countries share... Now I insist you take the argument challenge, if you will... Let us see Mary Wollstonecraft vs. Machiavelli/Don Juan!
I see it as actually a human issue--absolutely at times only the woman's issue, as it must necessarily be.
Here in the U.S., I guess (sigh) it is still a matter for wide public debate, and when you bring the law into it--I guess we should talk. Witness Prop 8 in CA--what a mess--as you know.
Since you all got so deep into abortion issue, I will state that I am seriously against any legislation on the matter, as a breach to freedom and restriction of choice, but every girl/woman who considers an abortion and especially her parents if they are trying to force her into abortion for whatever reasons should read this http://hubpages.com/hub/Dorsi-A-Story-o … -Chapter-9
Yes, but Mr. Misha, for every horror story like this, there are many women who had an extremely simple procedure that took 15 min. within the first 2 or 3 months of conception entirely of their own choice, felt they made the right choice and went on with life.
There is also the Morning After Pill--such as Plan B, ie, that some anti abortion activists would consider making illegal.
A girl's parents ideally should 'not force her into' anything that is her decision, also.
You missed the point, I am talking about psychological trauma to would-be mother, not a physical one
The anti-abortionists have no problem with traumatizing woman to
make them not get abortions. Maybe without all the propaganda there would not be so much trauma.
Psychological and physical trauma were both considered.
Frankly, I cannot believe I have been drawn into this old argument. For me, and I think most who have done any real thinking on it, it was settled long ago. No lie, I think it a high school issue, and one that pro-lifers will not advance through ANY maneuverings they choose.
LOL I specifically stated that I am AGAINST any legislation on the issue
I know that, Misha. That was why I was relating to you that I thought this was something of a high school issue.
I have been challenged to a hub war on it, ie. By one who believes he is 'superior''...or...something. Which was irresistible in the moment...
Personally I love 'Rumple of the Bailey'. Not sure he ever took any cases on abortion though.
Correct. It isn't a legal issue in the United States as well, it's a Constitutional issue which has implications beyond just abortion--it's an issue that involves problems of constitutional interpretation and Federalism (or the allotment of powers between the state and federal gov'ts). If you have a constitutional argument, I will gladly give it a fair hearing and respond civilly. I'm not particularly interested in emotionally wrought anecdotes or legal theories from a few foreign jurisdictions, and so you will have to forgive me if I politely ignore these.
I'm not terribly interested in your overly-legalistic and parochial approach either, so we're going to have to ignore each other politely, it appears.
Were you a woman, you might have a better understanding of the reality that pregnancy, abortion and childbirth are not just issues for men to have "Constitutional" arguments over, and you might not be quite so insulting as to use the phrase, "emotionally wrought anecdotes", either.
And, as this thread started with a discussion about an advertising campaign in London, perhaps "foreign" isn't quite the right word?
Abortion is an ethical, moral, and religious issue. It's also a deeply personal one. If you can't understand that, I can't help.
Thanks, Londongirl. That was kind of entertaining....
I'm beginning to wonder if Nick is doing well in law school, really, he doesn't follow along very well.
Nick follows along well enough to see that he has yet to receive any substantive arguments--only ad hominem reactions.
Jeez, Nick. You wanna put it to a popular vote? For a freedom of choice issue which in present form already respects our diversity of opinion?
There is only ONE reason you would even consider this a constitutional issue, and nobody is blind to it here.
If you are going to bluff as lawyer, then let us talk to the philosopher... I know you have multiple personalities already going on hubpages, lol, so bring forth he who speaks for truth...
Yes, it should be put to a popular vote and if some jurisdiction permit abortion (and I would expect many would, especially my home state of NY), I would be satisfied. Each state would serve as a civil laboratory, and those truly offended by the results could vote with their feet and move to a community more congenial to their perspectives.
And why would you be satisfied?
I get the constitutional argument more than you would expect (but then what else is new?). It teeters even for pro-choice proponents on the way it was maneuvered legalistically.
It doesn't change the core argument. Want to know your ethical and moral thoughts--as if I didn't already have some forethought on those.... Spell it out... You like to do that.
My ethical and moral thoughts are not relevant.
I should add that if you TRULY respect freedom of choice, you would allow the people to decide the issue. It should not be decreed from on high, by individuals who do not have any political accountability.
BS. That is total crap. I'm not Jewel. This from--was that you?--who wrote a defense on Socrates idea of what a democracy should be?
You hope it would turn out like the mess in CA with Prop 8, I would imagine?
I respect INDIVIDUAL freedom of choice--and you well know what you are dealing with here, and if you don't, you should. Stop bluffing.
You are sooooo obvious. Do you really think the educated populace is so naive? Christ!
Now I am slightly angry, so why don't you be brave and answer?
Ah! She's angry. It looks like someone needs a little "time-out"... When you collect yourself and allow your rational faculty to take command again, then perhaps we can continue. Better yet, why not channel all that feminine energy into a Hub so that we can have a real discussion.
Nick- She has written three books and numerous poems. She is certainly not shy of writing by any means just busy on some other writing endeavor. Meanwhile if you really feel a hub is a better place to discuss then a forum then you can answer this request:
Also for now if you want to post some comments then you can go to this article by LondonGirl: http://hubpages.com/hub/Is-abortion-eve … here-it-is
Are you quite as much of a Chauvanist as you wish to appear?
Haha! Don't even let me get started on him, Londongirl. A very interesting case. Mercutio jests at wounds that never felt a scar, I'm afraid.
But I have to go to work.
For all you know, I could be a man in drag with a mop on my head. Or...I could be both Ralph and Londongirl, too..this is the internet.
And I'd point out that this is about somebody who claims a real argument but bluffs his way through it--much worse than the way abortion rights were won. My rational faculty is always working--if, I wonder, that you even allow that females have that faculty.
But yes, unless you are willing to toughen up and spew what you really think.
You know I mostly always agree with you.... Only thing here is that I believe that this is a fully human issue in most regards, though of course it is a woman's body, so it is also a 'woman's issue' sometimes alone.
No husband, lol, . And the boyfriend can cook as well as I. We also need a maid!
I was in London yesterday and looking out for the posters, but didn't see any. Maybe they need to step up the campaign.
I have been trying to find out just how many buses there are in London.
No success. I suspect a lot more than the 800 they have advertised on.
About 800 seem to go past here every day, so more than that!
My husband saw one a few days ago.
As well as buses, there are some adverts on the tube. They include quotes by "the likes of" Katherine Hepburn, Albert Einstein etc...
Similar bus campaigns have taken place in Washington DC ("Why believe in god? Just be good for goodness sake") and in Spain, which also used the London slogan. Australian atheists tried to run similar campaigns, but came across problems, and an Italian campaign, reading "The bad news is that God does not exist. The good news is that you don't need him", is planned for February.
The Atheist Bus phenomenon is spreading!
"A Christian bus driver has refused to drive a bus with an atheist slogan proclaiming "There's probably no God".
Ron Heather, from Southampton, Hampshire, responded with "shock" and "horror" at the message and walked out of his shift on Saturday in protest.
First Bus said it would do everything in its power to ensure Mr Heather does not have to drive the buses. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp … 832647.stm
That is so funny. I am always amazed at how offended people get when you tell them there is no god
Bet he never walked out over any other ads before.
the ad even says, "probably", you'd think he could cover his bets!
by Joe Badtoe6 years ago
Religious postsThey are drowning this site. The whole my god is better than your god thing has worn me out. The same bigots claiming to be true christians whilst making ignorant remarks about other religions.Then...
by haj33966 years ago
Christians why are you not speaking out?
by Dave McClure9 years ago
Greetings -More often than not, when I first open a hub, it breaks about three inches from the top and puts in some spurious adverts, like this: Dog FoodLooking for D...Find exactly...
by Eric Dierker3 years ago
I have been seeing several Christians actually use fairly devious debating tactics to win arguments in the forums. To me it is a little unnerving. Do not get me wrong lively debate is good. But using such tactics as...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.