Homosexual Liberal Atheists ~ What's UP with that?

[BJean 16]

laurend: I believe that in the case of negligence a company or person should be liable for damages caused by that negligence. I personally have never held a cup of hot java between my legs, or my breasts or on the top of my head, or when I was fatter on my shelf that was my butt. It doesn't belong in those places, wasn't designed for that and was designed to be held in one's hand, where if one is not asleep or drunk, one can sense the degree of heat that is being emitted from said cup. If what you're saying is true, then why not ban drive-thrus completely because they may promote or at least offer up for misuse, a cup of hot coffee.< /p>

I think more like BubbleButt, that some of these lawsuits promote a serious absence of personal responsibility by consumers in this country. Just think how happy that makes all the attorneys.

By the way, one valid reason why McDonald's was making their coffee so hot is because Water that is not hot enough cannot produce a decent cup of coffee. They were probably losing sales because of their lousy coffee and decided to step up to the plate and do what it took to make better coffee. The fact that they didn't consider that some silly twit would try to drink her coffee from the wrong hole and burn herself in the process.

[Carlene 12]

I "believe" abortion is wrong so if I voted according to MY beliefs I would vote anti-abortion. Not everyone agrees with me about abortion and they have valid reasons for it so I vote for the greater good of the community vs. what is right for me personally.

BB....

Doesn't that make you pro-choice? Sounds like pro-choice to me.

[Carlene 12]

The fact that they didn't consider that some silly twit would try to drink her coffee from the wrong hole and burn herself in the process.

She didn't drink from the wrong hole. She was trying to take the lid off - while holding the cup between her legs - so she could add cream and sugar.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Carlene: It might interest you to know that my daughter-in-law became pregnant with identical twins. She suffered from a malady known as Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome. She consulted with four doctors including 2 "specialists" on TTTS. All but one recommended that she and my son "START OVER"!!! The fourth doctor told her what her medical alternative was, serial amniocentesis (weekly withdrawal of amniotic fluid), which might save one or both babies. That procedure carried quite a lot of risk and could also have a possible outcome of one or both babies dying in utero, or if one or both survived to his 2nd year of life, would have a very good chance of developing Cerebral Palsy. My DH got online and researched and read everything he could find and learned that there were two doctors in the United States who do a procedure (surgery) that could actually cure the problem.

Long story short, we flew to Milwaukee and had the doctor who has devoted his life to the research and development of the now relatively routine (for him) procedure. It was a 15 minute surgery that was captured on video and we all got to see. He did a small mid-line incision, went in and with a laser, cauterized the connecting blood vessels on the placenta so that they no longer allowed blood to circulate back and forth between the twins. Although she spent much of the remaining months of the pregnancy in bed, she delivered the boys by cesaerian and they are now rompin' stompin' healthy 4 year olds.

Please do not take this personally, because it is a legitimate question and even if you can not answer it, it may serve the purpose of making people think.

Would your son and daughter-in-law have sued if the if the babies had come out deformed and needing millions of dollars in medical care for the rest of their lives?

[BJean 16]

Bubble, your horrendous story (thank goodness you stuck by your guns and didn't give in to the heavy-handed tactics of the woman's attorney), reminds me of an event in our neighborhood in Orlando.

One night after a special party at the clubhouse (I think it was after the last night of the Bay Hill Invitational Golf Tournament) one of the guys who was temporarily employed to help with the serving and who incidentally could not speak English, got turned around and wandered onto the golf course after the party was over. He walked a while and realized that he was lost and needed help finding his way out. He walked up onto the back patio of one of the homes on the 15th fairway. It was 2 o'clock in the morning. He started knocking on the patio door. He could see a faint light coming from inside the house so he thought someone was awake. No one came. He pounded harder, then harder and then started yelling for help.

The homeowner heard all of the noise, crept into the darkened room on the inside at the patio and saw this person who was pounding and screaming trying to get into his house. He got his gun, went to the door and yelled at the guy to leave. The guy got all exasperated, screamed louder and kept hitting the glass door. The homeowner shot him and called the police.

The foreign speaking lost guy was injured, but not killed. Before he was out of the hospital an attorney had filed a lawsuit on his behalf saying that the homeowner had no right to shoot his client. His client only needed help and was in no way a threat. Cool Beans, huh?

[green 6]

Not really, the alternative to what you say would be to close my eyes and throw a dart not really knowing if I voted or not, let alone what I voted for.

I "believe" abortion is wrong so if I voted according to MY beliefs I would vote anti-abortion. Not everyone agrees with me about abortion and they have valid reasons for it so I vote for the greater good of the community vs. what is right for me personally.

As I understand it BubbleButt is choosing to do something which is very, very cool. She is saying that although she personally would be unable to tolerate abortion as an answer - in fact she finds abortion to be repulsive - she recognises that this is her moral and emotional response.

She recognises that if she were to vote according to her personal visceral response she would vote against the right of women to choose or, to put it more bluntly, she would be against abortion. She, however, has chosen to recognise that this is her moral axis and indeed her recognition of those situations which might drive other women to elect to undergo abortions is finally outside her purview. She has chosen the honourable path. She has stated her preferences but has also allowed that this is an issue which is far too complicated for her to opt to control on the behalf of other women.

I am pro-choice of course. I am one of those women who believe that the final choice must be left up to the indivual, that the targetted woman must always have the right to decide for it is this poor chick who will be the one who will have to shoulder the consequences, physically, socially, emotionally, and - should she opt to keep the kid - financially.

I would argue that there is a long history of infanticide, a post birth form of abortion, and that the material in the Old Testament concerning abortion and infanticide is kinda ambiguous with respect to the attitude of the Diety towards this activity.

As an atheist I am comfortable in saying that the needs of the potential mother, the critter who is already here and who has already embarked upon her crazy, mixed-up welcome to the 21st century life, trump that of a clumpling of cells. It is her call.

Sometimes that shallow, idiotic, and frightened pregnant momma is anxious to follow through the project and feels that she can make sure that the little baby human which she tosses off is going to be loved and cherished and protected. This is cool but this is simply a matter of choice and it must remain a matter of choice.

Green is of the opinion that all children should be wanted children.

[lisah25 3]

I have a link you will absolutely love:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=257985

The thread has been going on for years now. It continues to grow. It is hysterical. It is mostly emergency medicine folks talking about what they learn from their patients. I think you'll like it.

That is hilarious!!

[BJean 16]

TOM: Of course our kids would not have sued anyone if the boys were handicapped or had died. It was a chance they took. They knew of the risks and it was their decision to continue the pregnancy.

I would like to ask the question of that couple (I can't remember their names) who used in vitro fertilization to become pregnant. They were very active members of a church that does not believe in abortion. When the doctors told them that she was carrying 7 children and told the couple that for the sake of some of the babies, they should reduce the number of fertilized eggs in her womb. They cried foul. They said they would never dream of interfering with God's plan. Yes, the babies are handicapped. To the community's credit, they are all pitching in to help the couple. However my question is why is it okay to interfere with God's plan for them not to have children by using medical intervention, but when the doctors tried to do something to help at least some of those unborn babies, they said it was interference in God's plan?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I totally understand the information TOM posted relating to the McDonald's hot coffee in her shorts case. However, I believe if I were on the jury I believe I would have voted to charge the idiot customer 80% at fault, not 20%.

Life is funny. Today, I didn't feel like preparing my own dinner, and since I had to do some shopping at a store right next to a Chinese restaurant, I decided to eat a combination platter, and since I can only eat about half, I will have my Friday night dinner in a "doggy bag".

What makes life funny is, after all this debating about law suits and McDonald's hot coffee, I was sitting there eating/drinking my Won Ton Soup and the waitress came out with three soaps for the table in front of me. As she was passing the table, the 10 year old boy (of the party of 5) jumped out of his seat (for no apparent reason) hitting the waitresses hand and sending one of the Soups flying, landing on the face and chest (low cut Florida type dress) of the mother.

I immediately though to myself, "It's a good thing that it wasn't a cup of McDonald's coffee".

No matter how stupid or negligent the child was to jump, there was no damage because the soup was not at an uncivilized temperature.

No matter how stupid or negligent the woman was to put the coffee between her legs, there would not have been any (or much) damage if the coffee was at a civilized temperature.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Not really, the alternative to what you say would be to close my eyes and throw a dart not really knowing if I voted or not, let alone what I voted for.

I "believe" abortion is wrong so if I voted according to MY beliefs I would vote anti-abortion. Not everyone agrees with me about abortion and they have valid reasons for it so I vote for the greater good of the community vs. what is right for me personally.

I think abortion is a bad idea, but I think that telling women what to do with their bodies is a lot worse. I also think that allowing the government to dictate to doctors what medical care they can provide to their patients is a bad idea.

And I am not talking about quackery.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

BB....

Doesn't that make you pro-choice? Sounds like pro-choice to me.

Yes, it does. But what I was referring to was voting according to MY beliefs. If I did that I would have to vote anti-abortion.

When you set aside personal horror at abortion and look at science, I see the point of those that don't see my personal horror. That's why I see both sides and I fully understand both sides. I don't agree with either extreme, but I still see both sides of the issue.

It isn't right for me, so I won't have one. It is right for another so I won't prevent them from getting one.

Being gay isn't right for me so I won't be gay. It is right for another so I won't prevent them from living their life as responsible adults.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

TOM: Of course our kids would not have sued anyone if the boys were handicapped or had died. It was a chance they took. They knew of the risks and it was their decision to continue the pregnancy.

You say of course they would not have sued, but how would they have gotten the millions needed to care for their children?

I am not doubting you and I hope that a community support system would be available to everyone, but the community called the United States of America is no longer there for many people who need help through no fault of their own.

I would like to ask the question of that couple (I can't remember their names) who used in vitro fertilization to become pregnant. They were very active members of a church that does not believe in abortion. When the doctors told them that she was carrying 7 children and told the couple that for the sake of some of the babies, they should reduce the number of fertilized eggs in her womb. They cried foul. They said they would never dream of interfering with God's plan. Yes, the babies are handicapped. To the community's credit, they are all pitching in to help the couple. However my question is why is it okay to interfere with God's plan for them not to have children by using medical intervention, but when the doctors tried to do something to help at least some of those unborn babies, they said it was interference in God's plan?

I said something similar when the news was interviewing a man who's wife just had 7 healthy babies. The newsman asked the father, "How does it feel to be the father of 7 children all at once?"

The father started with, "Before I say anything else, I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for making this wondrous event possible..."

No. God did not want you to have children. That is why he made either you or your wife incapable of having children. It was medical science that made it possible.

[Alexandra 55]

By the way, one valid reason why McDonald's was making their coffee so hot is because Water that is not hot enough cannot produce a decent cup of coffee. They were probably losing sales because of their lousy coffee and decided to step up to the plate and do what it took to make better coffee. The fact that they didn't consider that some silly twit would try to drink her coffee from the wrong hole and burn herself in the process.

Actually, I've read (though I don't have time to find a citation) that the main reason McDonald's used such a dangerous temperature was that the hotter the water, the farther the coffee grounds go. Hotter coffee doesn't equal better coffee, it just lets the grounds yield more. It had nothing whatsoever to do with quality or taste. Not surprisingly.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

TOM: Of course our kids would not have sued anyone if the boys were handicapped or had died. It was a chance they took. They knew of the risks and it was their decision to continue the pregnancy.

I would like to ask the question of that couple (I can't remember their names) who used in vitro fertilization to become pregnant. They were very active members of a church that does not believe in abortion. When the doctors told them that she was carrying 7 children and told the couple that for the sake of some of the babies, they should reduce the number of fertilized eggs in her womb. They cried foul. They said they would never dream of interfering with God's plan. Yes, the babies are handicapped. To the community's credit, they are all pitching in to help the couple. However my question is why is it okay to interfere with God's plan for them not to have children by using medical intervention, but when the doctors tried to do something to help at least some of those unborn babies, they said it was interference in God's plan?

Perhaps for similar reasons as to why some are very active and vocal about assisted suicide being an absolute horror and they work hard to prevent others from ending their suffering. Yet when they are at the end of their own life and the suffering is beyond imagination, they want the rules change to fit their individual needs.

[mjsafari 0]

I have to say I LOVE this thread - it is nice to read things from people that hold the same opinion as me, but it is also nice see sensible Christians having intelligent discussions with Atheist and other beliefs. I have spent all day catching up and laughing out loud at many of them.

One question posed intrigued me greatly - did you go directly from being Christian to Atheist or did you claim to Agnostic at some point (paraphrasing)? This got me to thinking - I have been Agnostic since high school always believing that meant I didn't believe in a higher power, but I didn't preach against one and that being Atheist meant you preached against a Higher Power. This is from dictionary.com

—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

I guess after reading this I better start saying I am Atheist :omg: and Wheetsin you need to change your name - you are obviously not the Token Atheist on this board~!:clap2:

I am married to a believer, but it is not an issue for us. We just don't discuss religion very often. He respects my rights not to believe and I respect his to believe. I have allowed my oldest child to make his own choice - he is 14 and Atheist now, after attending several different churches and Christian schools. Our 4 year old will be allowed to make her own decision also. I have never hidden my opinion from them, but I have tried not to unduly influence them.

BubbleButt - you are so right about not making an issue. As an old OR nurse myself, I was often called to pray before surgery. That was neither the time or place to discuss my belief, nor was it my patient's business.

thank you all for your insightful posts, I don't think I can contribute anymore than has already been said. I am an "Atheist" who believes in the golden rule and the 10 commandments. Man's laws written by man that if followed by everyone would eliminate many if not all issues that cause war and strife.

One stereotype that has been broken - us fatties are some how less intelligent than skinny people and that we don't do anything all day but sit around and eat! :clap2: Obviously most people on this thread are well rounded in more ways than one!

Missy