This is a clip from episode 529 of
“The Atheist Experience” TV show
Watch the TV show at
http://www.atheist-experience.com/
Duration : 0:6:27
[youtube MdS5VAlluqs]
The hypocrisy of anti-abortion and abstinence-only policies
This entry was posted in against abortion and tagged abortion, abstinence, abstinence-only, anti-abortion, atheist, experience, religion, sex. Bookmark the permalink.
This may somewhat …
This may somewhat true but they’re clearlyfurthering that stereotype. Not once do they mention the possibility of being a non religious pro lifer. They clearly are try to entangle the two together as if they can’t be apart.
The fact of the …
The fact of the matter is that most pro-life proponents are religious. It’s the same thing with gay rights: You don’t HAVE to be religious to be an ignorant homophobe, it just so happens that most of the rationale for homophobia is religion-based. They never stated that to be pro life you MUST be religious, they are just exploring the problems with the religious rationale for that particular political view.
This is another …
This is another stereo typical athiest video that likes to label pro lifers as all religious and if you’re not you have to be pro choice. I’m living proof that these guys are wrong. I’m a strong pro life AGNOSTIC. Abortion is a secular issue. These guys have no clue what they are talking about.
“before one is …
“before one is ready to actually have it.”
I agree with you on everything you said except for that one little bit, there is no “dividing line” between when one couple can have sex and when one can’t (unless, maybe they’re REALLY young, like below 13 young) since reproduction is not the only purpose of sex, contrary to popular “pro-life” belief; if people weren’t sexually attracted to eachother, humans wouldn’t exist. But I agree, we need condoms, birth control, Morning After Pill, sex ed, etc.
The best way to …
The best way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies….hence abortions is to obtain a serious knowledge of the effects and consequences of having sex before one is ready to actually have it. This goes out to both sides…pro life and pro choice. I believe much more education is needed for both teen boys & girls as early as 13 yrs. Everyone should know the what safe sex is…as well as abstinence.
No lies, no hypocrisies….no bullying nor misinformation from either side.
“the real thing is …
“the real thing is you’re imposing your moral values on other people, and the end result is contrary to what you’re trying to achieve. It’s hypocritical, it’s self-defeating” Oh man, that hit WAAAAY too close to home! Too bad these Conservative fucktards/Fundie fucktards don’t care about the facts, only imposing their dogma on other people and making them feel miserable, probably because they feel insecure about what’s happening in THEIR own lives.
Catholic is NOT …
Catholic is NOT Christian. Catholic is Catholic w/Christ in when needed. A “Christian” is centered on Christ’s teachings. Mormon’s, Jehovahs ect are also not Christians as they do not center on Christ… That does not take into account the relationship God has with the individual… You are using the term incorrectly.
But I see you’re making serious headway in other areas… If it makes you feel like you’re really intelligent, we could call abortions “Fetus Prolonged Detention’s too?”
“hardly forcing …
“hardly forcing someone to do what i want.”
You’re pro-choice then?
“i meant collapse not pass out.”
Then the words “pass out” weren’t the best you could have employed. I suppose you just “mis-spoke” ?
“there are plenty of genetic diseases with painful symptoms that are treatable”
True. But since I specifically explained I wasn’t asking you about those, I don’t see how they’re relevant.
“who’s to determine that they would rather be dead”
People capable of empathy.
a little over …
a little over dramatic. having an opinion on right & wrong is hardly forcing someone to do what i want. and good grief i meant collapse not pass out. & there are plenty of genetic diseases with painful symptoms that are treatable and even more with painful symptoms which disapear all together after a certain age and others which don’t start until after a certain age. which ones do we terminate for fear of them suffering and who’s to determine that they would rather be dead?
“epileptic fits in …
“epileptic fits in which they would pass out and endure plenty of discomfort.”
They were suffering while unconscious?
Even if that were true (it isn’t), epilepsy is hardly a genetic disease guaranteed to result in a very short life of constant agony.
You’re profoundly ignorant of the facts but still believe other people should be forced to do what you want.
and i mean 1955 not …
and i mean 1955 not since they were 55years old
i did not mention …
i did not mention the financial status of pam stenzels mother nor of the 15 year old girl who gave birth to my neice. when i said “poor teen” i meant to sympathize with her rape. both those mothers had differing situations which made them a) not able to care for the child or b) have no interest in taking care of their own child. so OBVIOUSLY i don’t think financial positions are the only factor. i only mentioned my family’s wealth, or lack there of, to include a financially difficult situation.
ok like every one …
ok like every one of my fathers uncles who were born having epileptic fits in which they would pass out and endure plenty of discomfort. supposed to be a lifelong thing. lucky them they haven’t had a fit since 55. none of them…guess what. science is just like condoms. not always 100%
And you think that …
And you think that financial position is the only factor to be taken into account? I can’t work out if you’re profoundly ignorant or just being disingenuous.
“according to the …
“according to the FDA … condoms do not always prevent the spread of STD”
That’s true, but that isn’t what you were saying. Saying “don’t protect” is different to “don’t protect 100% perfectly”.
Your statment was the equivalent of saying that because drinking water doesn’t make you live forever, you shouldn’t drink water at all. It is an error.
“There’s no way to …
“There’s no way to be sure that a child will suffer.”
Yes there is. It’s called medical science.
“possible suffering …
“possible suffering is not grounds to terminate a child”
What about certain suffering? Genetic diseases that are guaranteed to result in a very short life of constant agony?
of course we go …
of course we go through the regular life issues, and “oh if only we were trust fund babies or lived in a better community our lives would be better” but life issues and possible suffering is not grounds to terminate a child
There’s no way to …
There’s no way to be sure that a child will suffer. Pam stenzel was born to a poor teen as a result of a brutal rape. one would assume the child would be born into suffering. pam was adopted and well taken care of. my neice was born to an irresponsible 15 year old who doesn’t even know who the father of her baby is. she was adopted by my sister who is an excellent mother. my parents are by no means wealthy and moved to the states with nothing yet my family has been fine.
“The surest way to …
“The surest way to avoid these diseases is to not have sex altogether (abstinence). Another way is to limit sex to one partner who also limits his or her sex in the same way (monogamy). Condoms are not 100% safe, but if used properly, will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Protecting yourself against the AIDS virus is of special concern becuase this disease is fatal and has no cure.” -FDA
reduce the risk doesn’t equal “always prevent”…that’s not BS.
uhh, according to …
uhh, according to the FDA it’s not bull to say that condoms do not always prevent the spread of STDs. yeah, the FDA and all my doctors are lying to me as part of some psycho religious agenda…unlikely. and a religious person can’t be rational?
“murder is not a …
“murder is not a moral value”
They’re not discussing murder though. Perhaps you might like to find out what words actually mean before using them.
Especially if you’re going to accuse other people of being badly educated.
Otherwise you just look like an ignorant hypocrite.
“i was lectured by …
“i was lectured by a non-religious sex-ed group [who said] condoms didn’t protect against the spread of all STD especially not AIDS”
Either they lied to you, or you’re lying to us.
There is no evidence whatsoever for that.
I find it more likely that your priest or religious parents told you that, and because you didn’t realize they were lying / ignorant you felt it would be plausible to attribute it to rational people.
It is not plausible, it is bullshit.
“sorry you’re not …
“sorry you’re not important enough and the worlds not big enough for the both of us”
And you don’t think it’s possible that a mother could believe that continuing a pregnancy will sentence their child to a life of suffering?
Or maybe you think that if a potential future child is important they should always be made to suffer?
I don’t agree.
“and ppl with aids …
“and ppl with aids shouldn’t be spreading it around by having sex in the 1st place ”
True, but since it’s abundantly obvious that some of them are still going to have sex, I don’t agree that they should be forbidden any protection at all.
The only thing which works against aids and pregnancy is educating people about the facts of the matter.
Trying to keep them ignorant and just telling them not to has never worked.
Just look at the teen pregnancy rate in the bible belt.