The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Ugh. I responded to a fundies post on FB. I'm weak. ;)

I just read a post on FB written by the friend of a friend. He's a 21-year old guy. I'm a 44-year old woman, just to give it some perspective. His is a bible-thumper (I'm not friends with him on FB, he just posted on a friend of mines wall, but I know him and his family through mutual friends). He said if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex. I know I should just let it go, but I let him have it. So the only reason to have sex is to get pregnant? Then he said something about if she gets pregnant she has no right to 'kill the kid'. I mentioned rape and incest and the fact that not everyone believes a fertilized egg is a 'kid' yet, and if he doesn't believe in the right to have an abortion, don't have one, and it's a personal decision,etc. I KNOW I shouldn't have argued with him. But it's 4 a.m., I can't sleep, and now I let myself get pissed-off by someone I know is a fundie. Ugh. lol. I will ignore the post if he posts again. There are too many of them to piss me off. I'd have a coronary if I let them all get to me...

2 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chris Breman on March 10, 2012 at 4:48am

Let men bear the babies for a few years - then we'd see a change in legislature....

Permalink Reply by booklover on March 10, 2012 at 5:03am

That's for sure Chris!

Permalink Reply by Gwaithmir on March 12, 2012 at 11:05pm

I once heard a woman say that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. That's probably right.

Permalink Reply by Victoria Carroll on April 10, 2012 at 9:24pm

Here Here!!

Permalink Reply by Mac Rex on March 10, 2012 at 5:20am

Why any man thinks they have any right to impose their view on women's reproductive rights, pisses me off!

Permalink Reply by booklover on March 10, 2012 at 5:26am

I agree Mac! :)~ Melinda

Permalink Reply by Denise Bennett on March 22, 2012 at 2:37pm

I couldn't agree more.

Permalink Reply by Sandi on March 10, 2012 at 6:29am

A lady on Bill Maher last night (excuse me, I can't remember her name) said "Fine, if that is the way you want it, us women will only give out sex when we want a baby and at no other times. Let's see how long the guys last".

It isn't as though it is just women that want to have sex for fun, guys want it too and in some cases more than we do! (actually, in most cases lol). If we were to close our legs at all times other than for procreation, guys would be going nuts everywhere. Just remember, every sperm is sacred, so when you jack off, you are killing innocent children.

I was told by a fundie yesterday that if it wasn't for religion, we wouldn't be able to read as it was the church that started schools and helped everyone learn to read and I should read Harvard's motto and research it's history to prove it!!!!!!. I don't know what Harvard's motto is and the fact that it is written by man (like the bible) seems to make no difference, and I doubt that reading a school motto will change my religious views. There are no answers for these people, and there is no reasoning.

Permalink Reply by booklover on March 10, 2012 at 8:07am

You are right Sandi, you can't get them to use reason.

Permalink Reply by Mrs.RB on March 10, 2012 at 1:41pm

I think that if it wasn't for religion, people might have learned to read sooner, or more people might have learned to read. Religion controlled who got to learn, who could afford access to information, and what misinformation was being dispatched to the common people. By opening the first schools, they also controlled what was being learned, and by whom. It also meant that when the religious moved into areas, and took over, they could change cultures, and get rid of things that were important to the people who were already there, for the sake of indoctrinating the "ignorant" and "saving" them.

Permalink Reply by Mac Rex on March 11, 2012 at 9:24pm

I think the history of literacy is more complex than that, and depends on the religion. Sacred texts/artifacts/charms have always been restricted as to who my see them, but the ability to read non-sacred writing was not. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the early xian's ruling elite were against teaching reading to the "unwashed masses", and until more recently actively suppressed literacy of the 'lower classes".

Permalink Reply by Mrs.RB on March 11, 2012 at 9:42pm

You could be right, Mac. I must admit I am not as familiar with all of that I as I should have been before saying what I did. I will, now, have to do more research into it...Glad to have something else to go learn.