Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Conservative:
Government is too big and intrusive.
Babies have the right to live.
The homosexual agenda is destructive to family and the nation as a whole.
The feminist agenda is also destructive to the family and traditional values that have served well for thousands of years.
We need a strong armed forces to protect the country. There are countries in the world that would like to see the USA fall.
We must put the well being of the Nation above the interest of any party affiliation.
We must not give or sell our secrets to hostile governments for money to finance our campaigns.
Liberal:
Government is the answer to everything. The more the better. Freedom gets in the way of government involvement in our lives.
There is no such thing as a baby. A fetus is just a lump that needs to be destroyed. Murdering babies is a political statement for liberals.
Liberals must be politically correct at all cost. Even at the cost of our traditions and morals. Even though they probably wouldn’t want a homosexual in the family, they pander to them for the sake of the party.
Feminist… see above.
Sell our secrets to the enemy and destroy the military by using it up when Clinton needs to have the attention of the public diverted from his corrupt conduct. Don’t spend any money on the military and once it’s used up, it’s gone.
Sell our nuclear secrets to the enemy and then have the Justice Department run cover for the Administration to keep it in power. Even when the safety of the nation is at stake, the party must stay in power.
These are only a few of the differences between what is and what should be. If this country is to survive, we as a nation must get back to our roots and establish our morals and values the way they were before the liberals destroyed them.
We must bring this country back from the brink of destruction by becoming patriots again. We must reaffirm our faith in God and not be afraid to mention Jesus Christ and the Ten Commandments in school. We must not be afraid to stand up to the people who say “separation of church and state” with the knowledge that no where in the Constitution does it say anything about any separation of church and state. Our Fore Fathers knew the importance of depending on God for the guidance of the people’s conduct in a free country.
It is still not a crime (yet) to be a Christian.
Just thought I’d start the comments. Never forget that Liberalism is a mental disorder!
Good Morning Heather!
Mary, Good morning! Nice to see you:]
I thought Michael Medved put it well… The difference between conservatives and liberals on abortion:
Conservatives agree it is wrong. They debate whether it might need to be legal.
Liberals agree it needs to be legal. They debate whether it might be wrong.
The top cartoon illustrates one of the most frequently encountered disorders of the right – projection. It is the right wing that is focused on trivial issues like so-called “defense of marriage”, and distractions like border security.
Heather’s “descriptions” of conservatives and liberals are evidence of the contempt each side has for the other. We have come to the point where we as a people can no longer come and reason together because we believe those who disagree with us are crazy.
We live in a democratic republic and to make that form of government work the way our founders intended, believers are obliged to compromise with unbelievers and vice versa. Rewriting history to make it seem as though such compromise is unnecessary is just a ploy to avoid it.
If we simply cannot tolerate those of our fellow citizens who hold different religious or political views, then the great experiment of America will end in failure. Many on the left believe that is what right-wing Christians have in mind. Are they wrong?
Elizabeth,
Liberals reject the notion of right and wrong. That is an archaic concept to them. Except when it is their golden cow that is being gored. Then they quickly become intolerant and attempt to crush the source of their discomfort. The liberals think in terms of what they can get away with in the moment.
Charles,
Border security is a distraction.
Do you have locks on your home?
Do you actually lock your doors?
If you look up and there are uninvited strangers in your home do you just ignore them and hope they will leave.
Do you provide them with food, money, education, and medical care?
If you are so generous, could I please have your address?
I have five adult children and they need a place to live while they finish their college educations.
Heck I am really tired of working, I need a place to retire.
Would you put me up too?
yor bro ken
Liberals are only tolerant when you see it their way. If a Pro-choice woman says “My body, My CHOICE.” then why is there such a big stink being made about the octo mom? It’s her body and it was her CHOICE. Doesn’t anyone see the insanity of that saying alone???
I could introduce you to a woman who has had 7 abortions, and I would bet my last nickel that the PC crowd would call her “super responsible.”
Excellent Sunday quote.
yor bro ken
kbhvac, how true. They all talk out of both sides of their mouths. The only time libs are happy is when they can all sit around and agree with each other. Ever watch Meet The dePressed?
Charles,
‘The hit dog always howls first and usually the loudest and the longest.’
Then the remainder of the liberal pack pick up the chorus and continue the refrain. The resulting cacophony is a veritable dirge of feinted grief and misery.
(Have you ever heard coyotes howling in the night?)
In fact one of tactics of the left is to howl pre-emptively if they even suspect some one might be considering throwing a stone in their general direction.
The liberals abhor rock throwing and advocate banning stones, unless they are the ones directing the tossing.
yor bro ken
Heather, we all are happy when we can sit among people with whom we agree. That is a human trait, not one that is exclusively liberal or conservative. (For the record, I usually find Meet the Press firmly in the center-right establishment. Other than 2 or 3 PBS programs and 2 MSNBC shows, I am not aware of a mainstream news show with a liberal slant.)
As long as we simply attack one another as criminals, crazies, ignoramuses, anti-American, or religious bigots we cannot listen to one another or work together to make our nation better. Is that your aim? To destroy the possibility of democratic dialog and transform the country into an authoritarian theocracy like Iran? There are liberals who believe that – are they correct? If not, how do you propose we proceed to work together within the framework of a democracy?
Charles, debates can get heated. I can tell you that I don’t condone animal cruelty. Can you meet me in the middle and agree that we need to stop killing our children?
Heather,
Or ‘This Weak’?
Or “Disgrace the Nation’?
Keith Blowharderman is always good for some laughs.
Watch this exchange between Blowharderman and Craig Ferguson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf-7NSMhk0k
Ferguson understands the obligations of ‘journalism’ where as Blowharderman understands journalist as PR agents for the Obama administration. Ferguson, having recently become a ‘naturalized U.S. citizen, also understands and respects the Constitution whereas Blowhardermand sees it as something to be used or avoided to achive his partisan goals.
yor bro ken
Communist News Network…CNN..LOL!
“Other than 2 or 3 PBS programs and 2 MSNBC shows, I am not aware of a mainstream news show with a liberal slant.”
Charles, you have to be kidding me?
The March for Life in DC this year drew 300,000 people. Not one of the big 3 (ABC,NBC or CBS) covered the event.
Yet if 20 anti-Bush protestors have a march it gets covered…
kbhvac, thanks for the link. LOL!!
Posted by: Charles at March 29, 2009 9:56 AM
(For the record, I usually find Meet the Press firmly in the center-right establishment. Other than 2 or 3 PBS programs and 2 MSNBC shows, I am not aware of a mainstream news show with a liberal slant.)
——————————————————
Charles,
Your inability identify the ‘bias’ in the MSM is an indication of your selective blindness or tone deafness.
I have an ideological preference, but I can still detect bias even when it supports my point of view.
The real indication of how bad the bias has become is the sinking ratings of network news in all it’s permutations and the financial collapse of the print media.
People do not buy what they do not trust. If they want fiction and fantasy, they will read a fairy tale or go to a movie.
The market place seldom lies or misleads. In the long run it is usually correct.
yor bro ken
Charles,
Can I tell my children to pack their bags.
Will you leave the light on for them?
yor bro ken
Charles: “There are liberals who believe that – are they correct?”
No. Easy enough to answer.
Chalres: “If not, how do you propose we proceed to work together within the framework of a democracy?”
Heres a solution. Why dont we use a consistent moral system instead of making up random exceptions simply to appease the lazy?
Heather,
Craig Ferguson is an irreverent hoot. He was born in Scotland, so there is a built in animus cocerning the Royal Family’ but his humor is pretty spot on.
Blowharderman has not quite caught on that Ferguson does not share his partisan agenda.
Ferguson’s book ‘American On Purpose’ should be a great read.
yor bro ken
Does anyone remember how Dan Quayle was persectuted with a vengence by the MSM? Does anyone recall the qualifications of Jesse Jackson to run for president ever being called into question by that same MSM?
I remember Jackson referring to NY City as “Hymietown”. That’s after the good reverend first tried to lie, then couldn’t remember, then had to own up to it after a reported presented a taped recording. The reporter caught the flack.
Now imagine the MSM reaction if Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson had said the same thing.
Media bias? Been around a long time.
Mary,
I lived in Washington State when the ‘Reverend’ Jesse Jackson was seeking the Democrat nomination and the ‘Reverend’ Pat Robertson was seeking the Republican nomination for president.
Washington is ‘caucus’ state, meaning you had to actually go to a precinct site and stay for the evening to vote for the candidate of your choice.
As it turned out Jackson carried the state for the democrats and Robertson carried the state for the Republicans.
The uproar from the MSM and the left over Robertson’s short lived success was deafening.(kbhvac at March 29, 2009 9:52 AM)
The repbublic was in imminent danger of becoming a theocracy and the ‘christian’ version of sharia law would soon be implemented. The only problem was only the ‘reverend’ Robertson was identified as the saboteur. The liberal ‘christian’ was completely acceptable to the MSM.
It is not about theology, it is about ideology. This is where I first heard the left referring to pro-lifere who practiced the passive non-violent dissent as ‘terrorists’. The MSM parroted these goofy comparisons without applying any analytical thinking because even though they knew the analogy was weak it re-inforced their own anti-christian bigotry.
I was labeled an ‘international terrorist’ because I crossed the border into British Columbia, Canada (legally) and organized and taught pro-lifers the strategy and tactics of passive non-violent resistance. The same tactics and strategy that Martin Luther King Jr. employed in the Civil Rights Movement of the 60′s.
Charles, are you paying attention? (Listen for the ‘pop’.)
At about the same time the omsbudsman for the L.A. Times (hardly a bastion of conservatism)
commissioned a survey of MSM coverage of the ‘abortion’ debate.
Guess what his findings demonstrated irrefutable examples of bias in ‘all’ the news media.
Charles, are beginning to feel the pressure around your ears and jaw. Are you experiencing sensations similar to those when your body is telling you it is time for bowel movement. If so the ‘pop’ is iminent. Do not fight the urge. Constipation is unhealthy. Death begins in the colon. Liberation is at hand.
yor bro ken
I can only hope that Obamination will become GObama after his 4 years are up. We can’t afford 8 years of him.
Charles,
In your view when goes an infant get human rights?
yor bro ken
Never forget that Liberalism is a mental disorder!
Just like homosexuality, right? *eye roll*
Charles:
On the other post you state that lying is never justified.
On this post, you project moral relativism and compromise. I guess Jesus should have just compromised with the devil when He was tempted in the desert?
Here’s a lesson for you Charles: Peace only comes with total victory over your enemy. The Liberals know this and are practicing it right now. Conservatives should learn this lesson as well. I just love the way Liberals are compromising with us Conservatives in their current attempt of destroying of our country.
Charles,
“If we simply cannot tolerate those of our fellow citizens who hold different religious or political views, then the great experiment of America will end in failure.”
It was the proponents of ‘slavery’ who not only walked away from the Union, but turned and threw the first punch, an act of war against their former fellow citizens that precipitated a civil war that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Who was the ‘intolerant’ one is this example?
The great experiment of America was severely tested and it passed the test.
Charles, pay close attention I am going to use your own words against you. I am just going to change the order.
“Many christians on the RIGHT believe that is what the LEFT has in mind. Are they wrong”
yor bro ken
Homosexuality is an abomination. If you can refute that, be my guest.
Posted by: Leah at March 29, 2009 11:11 AM
‘Never forget that Liberalism is a mental disorder!’
“Just like homosexuality, right? *eye roll*”
—————————————————-
They are not the same ‘mental disorder’, but homosexuality and liberalism are both, at the least, a ‘dysfunction’.
Both are harmful.
yor bro ken
Okay, I’ll refute… no it’s not!
Going with your argumentation skills, that should appeal to you.
Leah,
Use your ‘book’ to refute the argument.
yor bro ken
I read that it was an abomination in the Bible. That’s the word I will continue to believe.
Anyone else who will try to convince me otherwise had better back it up in Scripture.
Why do people feel the need to tip toe around the homosexual issue? A man is not to lay with another man. It’s simple.
Leah,
027.055 Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!
Al-Qur’an, 027.055 (An-Naml [The Ant, The Ants])
Text Copied from DivineIslam’s Qur’an Viewer software v2.913
yor bro ken
Charles,
My children, who are all perfect angels, will be disappointed to learn of your intolerance. They were looking forward to enjoying your generosity and your hospitality.
“Do not forget or neglect or refuse to extend hospitality to strangers [in the brotherhood — being friendly, cordial, and gracious, sharing the comforts of your home and doing your part generously], for through it some have entertained angels without knowing it.”
yor bro ken
Thanks to all of you for making things perfectly clear. You hate anyone who does not agree with you, have no interest in intelligent debate of the great issues of our day, and quickly resort to insults and personal attacks when you don’t have a rational argument. It also appears that there are no political positions you hold that can be compromised in the least regardless of the consequences. There are lots of people who consider the so-called religious right in this country the American Taliban. If those who comment here are a representative example, those people are correct.
An American Taliban? LOL!! Pulleezze.
Charles, are you serious?
Please show one example of how we “hate” anyone who disagree with us. Please show one example of someone trying to engage in rational debate where we instead began insults?
Do you consider it a “rational argument” to come in here and call us the “American Taliban.”
Do you really think that is in the spirit of fostering compromise?
You want to rationally debate, let’s rationally debate. So far you have done nothing of the sort.
Charles, yes. We are all so dangerous. That’s why we are on our computers in our homes and free to roam around in society. We also work and pay bills. Sounds like paranoia to me.
Charles,
“There are lots of people who consider the so-called religious right in this country the American Taliban. If those who comment here are a representative example, those people are correct.”
You are allowing your emotions to cloud your judgement.
No one here has threatened you. We have attacked your ideas. If they are vaulable to you, then defend them.
You are making our case for us. You are the one who is intolerant of ideas that are not in harmony with your own.
Quit whining and advance your arguement.
yor bro ken
Charles,
In fact we debate each other all the time on this blog. All I see are people disagreeing, not hating you or anyone. Is reference to the “religious right” as the American Taliban any less an example of bigotry, hate, and intolerance?
Why do we never hear anything about the “religious left”?
Who on this thread advocated for laws similar to the Taliban? What particular laws did they advocate?
Aversion to homosexulity is not restricted to the Christian faith, as Ken points out in his 11:43am post. Also, I never read any posts advocating harm to gay people or denying of their rights.
I understand the common position of my religion on homosexuality. Have you ever heard of al-Fatihah? It’s a group of homosexual Muslims–I’d be interested to hear what they have to say.
Also, the Qur’an is not like the Bible. You can’t just pull English verses out to prove your point they all have context, and this context is best understood in Arabic. Every single copy of the Qur’an is IDENTICAL. It is the translation that varies.
Would anyone on the left side condone adulty?
I have heard people condone adultry before. They are able to justify it to themselves. Does that make it acceptable?
Leah,
I would imagine the ‘al-Fatihah’ would have divergent opinions just like all other human beings.
They would as you poined out ‘pull verses from the Qur’an’ to support their ppoint of view.
You find the verse in the Qur’an in context that adocates homosexuality as an acceptable or preferable alternative life style.
I am interested in considering what you discover.
yor bro ken
oops meant adultery.
Leah, all the biblical verses have context as well. I’m not sure I understand what you’re claiming to be the difference. Perhaps you could explain it a little better for those of us who haven’t had much interaction with the Koran.
Leah,
If every copy of the Qu’ran is identical, then why the different sects of Islam?
The answer is simple. We all have biases that were shaped by each of our own unique lifes experiences.
I have a friend who is Bahai. She contends all Bahai are in complete agreement concerning things Bahai.
My response is that if all Bahai are human beings, then that statement is utterly impossible.
I do not agree with myself all the time.
New information comes to light. Lifes experience gives me a new perspective enables me to understand that which was incomprehensible.
I used to believe that I was better than any woman. Then a woman ran my tail off playing badminton. That changed my perspective in many ways.
yor bro ken
Charles: “quickly resort to insults and personal attacks when you don’t have a rational argument….the so-called religious right in this country the American Taliban…those people are correct.”
Just thought it was funny. “You people call people names, you are poopy heads for doing that!”
I also find it interesting that Charles is ranting at nothing in particular, yet when I called him out on his “rational argument” a few threads ago, he never responded. Leave it to the liberals to pick and choose what subjects to respond to.
Oliver, Responding to one question is difficult for them. Then they have to start fighting back with their liberal double speaking drivel. It get complicated.
Another liberal tactic..*Diversion*
Very true. Or in Asitis’ case, just say things arent the case when they clearly are.
“The sky isnt blue, its orange of course you silly person!!! I have to go now!”
Someone told me this. If you are a logical person, you cannot argue any point to a person who is illogical. They won’t hear it. They don’t want to hear it. They will always be right. You will always be wrong. That’s why I’ve resorted to prayer.
Although I agree Heather, I do believe that at the least you can show to the general population that an argument is illogical and let them take it from there. In other words, I have no desire to actually convince Hal or Asitis, or any of the other morons posting here, of anything, only to continue to show how illogical the pro-choice movement is.
Oliver,
Hal is not a moron. He is highly intelligent.
I like Hal. I appreciate the brevity of his responses. Unlike me, Hal does not waste words.
Hal is not easily provoked to resort to insults.
Hal will not substitute insult for arguement.
If and when Hal insults it is in response to multiple insults directed towards him.
Even GOD has a limit to HIS patience.
yor bro ken
Hal is insidious. He says things that he knows are provocative but uses kind language in order to cover himself.
He says things like “God bless President Obama” in response to Obama allowing untold thousands of children to be killed.
Hal has been here for about 3 years. He hasn’t ever bended or broken on his PC stance. He says his wife has had 2 abortions with no regrets from either one of them. He’s pretty nice, but he hasn’t changed a bit.
He says things like “God bless President Obama” in response to Obama allowing untold thousands of children to be killed.
Posted by: Lauren at March 29, 2009 1:32 PM—————– I’ve seen him do this often.
Let me switch gears for a moment. Can anyone tell me how Obama is going to create jobs? Where will he be creating them? I’d really like to know.
Where will he be creating them?
Heather, from what I’ve read, a lot of new government jobs will be created. Makes sense. He’s massively increasing the role of the federal government. He needs workers to help him run it. And it has a political payoff too. Are those new federal hires likely to vote the Dems out of power if it means losing a cushy government job?
Fed Up, thank you for the response. What’s with the building of bridges and road work?
Lauren,
I did not say Hal was not ‘provocative’. But if you read the posts preceding his ‘provocations’ you will find that someome usually ‘provoked’ him.
If Jill rigidly enforced her rule against ‘provocation’ and ‘insults’ there would be a lot of blank screens and dead air.
Call Hal an ‘agente provocateur’ then. There may be some truth to that statement.
Hal is not a ‘moron’.
moron
1 usually offensive : a mildly mentally retarded person
2 : a very stupid person
insidious
1 a: awaiting a chance to entrap : treacherous b: harmful but enticing : seductive
I do not know if ‘insidious’ even applies to Hal.
Which one of us, who post regularly on this site and who disagrees with Hal could be ‘enticed’ to agree with Hal on issues of substance?
If you want to prevail in the battle you must not allow your opponent to provoke you to anger because then you substitute emotion for reason and you place yourself in a position of greater vulnerability, not less.
Unless you are dealing with people who believe professional wrestling (formerly known as ‘studio wrestling’.) is not choreographed, then anger will not persuade or convince them of the rightness of your position.
yor bro ken
Heather, here’s a site where you can search the stimulus bill if you want http://readthestimulus.org/
Here’s a spreadsheet showing how stimulus funds were appropriated http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pV-c6t5fOVmNorqMpHvnCMw
I’ll keep my opinion about the shovel ready earmarks–I mean projects–to myself.
Let me switch gears for a moment. Can anyone tell me how Obama is going to create jobs? Where will he be creating them? I’d really like to know.
Posted by: Heather at March 29, 2009 1:54 PM
———————————————————
‘Green jobs’ as in printing money to re-distribute.
Not as in ‘olive drab’.
Not as in defense spending.
Internal Revenue Agents.
Environmental Protection Agents.
ACORN like organizations.
Foreign Aid (Emphasis on reproductive health issues=abortion, sterilization)
yor bro ken
Oops, Heather, sorry. That spreadsheet link was for an earlier version of the bill, not the final stimulus package that was passed. My bad.
He is most certainly insidious.
I think this definition fits his usual post pattern:
“Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner”
Hal makes comments that he KNOWS are going to incite anger. He does so subtly. Either he IS a moron (which I don’t think either) or he is doing it on purpose.
I think Hal doesn’t think about things beyond liberal talking points. However, his knack for saying the most possible offensive “innocent” remark tells me that he knnows exactly what he’s doing.
Lauren,
We agree on this about Hal: Hal is not a moron.
yor bro ken
We agree on this about Hal: Hal is not a moron.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at March 29, 2009 3:11 PM
It’s unanimous then.
Sorry if I’ve been “provocative.”
I do indeed try to incite some reactions from time to time. It’s important to know that there’s more than one way to look at things. For those of you who believe in the Christian version of God, you might pause for a moment and ask if perhaps He has blessed us with Obama at this time and place. Here’s my main attitude these days; I understand the basic “pro life” argument. It’s a legitimate point of view, and you’re welcome to try to change the hearts and minds of Americans (and Canadians) and I’ll try to object respectfully, if at all.
A lot of the other stuff we disagree about just makes me crazy, and I probably have not been as respectful. These include opposition to gay rights/marriage, disputing evolution, baseless attacks on Obama, etc.
In general, I’m just having fun. I don’t take any of this that seriously.
I think it’s rude to say “liberalism is a mental disease.” Let’s examine Heather’s first post on this thread. My comments in CAPS
Conservative:
Government is too big and intrusive.
I AGREE
Babies have the right to live.
DISAGREE
The homosexual agenda is destructive to family and the nation as a whole.
DISAGREE
The feminist agenda is also destructive to the family and traditional values that have served well for thousands of years.
DISAGREE
We need a strong armed forces to protect the country. There are countries in the world that would like to see the USA fall.
AGREE
We must put the well being of the Nation above the interest of any party affiliation.
AGREE
We must not give or sell our secrets to hostile governments for money to finance our campaigns.
AGREE
Liberal:
Government is the answer to everything. The more the better. Freedom gets in the way of government involvement in our lives.
DISAGREE
There is no such thing as a baby. A fetus is just a lump that needs to be destroyed. Murdering babies is a political statement for liberals.
DISAGREE THAT A FETUS “NEEDS” TO BE DESTROYED.
Liberals must be politically correct at all cost. Even at the cost of our traditions and morals.
DISAGREE
Even though they probably wouldn’t want a homosexual in the family, they pander to them for the sake of the party.
I’D BE HAPPY TO HAVE HOMOSEXUALS IN MY FAMILY, INCLUDING MY CHILDREN. WHY NOT?
Feminist… see above.
Sell our secrets to the enemy and destroy the military by using it up when Clinton needs to have the attention of the public diverted from his corrupt conduct.
DISAGREE
Don’t spend any money on the military and once it’s used up, it’s gone.
DISAGREE
Sell our nuclear secrets to the enemy and then have the Justice Department run cover for the Administration to keep it in power. Even when the safety of the nation is at stake, the party must stay in power.
DISAGREE
These are only a few of the differences between what is and what should be. If this country is to survive, we as a nation must get back to our roots and establish our morals and values the way they were before the liberals destroyed them.
HMMM, AM I A LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE?
We must bring this country back from the brink of destruction by becoming patriots again. We must reaffirm our faith in God and not be afraid to mention Jesus Christ and the Ten Commandments in school. We must not be afraid to stand up to the people who say “separation of church and state” with the knowledge that no where in the Constitution does it say anything about any separation of church and state. Our Fore Fathers knew the importance of depending on God for the guidance of the people’s conduct in a free country.
It is still not a crime (yet) to be a Christian.
Posted by: Heather at March 29, 2009 7:39 AM
Hal, we’re not idiots. We know there are more than one way to look at things. We wouldn’t be on here debating if we thought that everyone agreed about everything.
We don’t need your “clever” responses to tell us that there are people who disagree with the notion that babies deserve to live.
The grotesque caricature and total misrepresentation of liberals here makes me laugh.
Let’s see. Conservatives are the kind of people who call for the restoration of our “freedom” while calling for the government to pry into our bedrooms, take away rights from homosexuals, arbitrarily censor and ban any book, magazine, movie,TV show or website etc those consider”Indecent”, even though not everyone agrees on wgat is indecent.
The also want to make non-christians second class citizens, force studentsin school to prey the Christian way even if they are atheists or agnistics, deny women rthe right to an abortion while gutting ot eliminating
all government help to the poor, force women to back-alley abortionnists or to try to abort themselves, while women who can afford it easily fly of elsewhere for safe,legal ones.
They scream for the “right to life”, and then couldn’t care less about what happens to those poor,unwanted children who ARE born,
Don’t want the government to help any one who is poor or out of work because that’s”socialism”.
Many also want to make comntraceptives illegal even though this would only GREATLY INCREASE abortions and create a black market in contraceptives.
They want the death penalty even though this will never reduce crime and make us safer and will only risk executing the innocent.
They delude themselves into thinking that charities and the private sector will be able to provide for all those in need.
They demonize homosexuals and hysterically claim that there is some kind of sinister gay plot to “recruit” kids and molest as many as possible.
They want funfamentalist Christianity and THEIR interpretation of the Bible to be the basis of US law, even though thios is totally contrary to what the founding fathers intended. Most were deists, and
vehemently opposed to religion getting power.
Great. With freedom like this, who needs tyranny?
Robert, you have shown yourself to be nothing but a troll. You come on here and make random, absurd accusations and then refuse to comment when we call you out on just how wrong you are.
Are you an automated anti-conservative spam-bot?
Heather: I’m curious. How would you argue against the homosexual lifestyle without using scripture?
Hal:
In general, conservative Christians base their world view on what God (via the Bible) is defining as right and wrong. Bible says marriage betweeen a man/woman only, therfore, our world view is that gay marriage is wrong.
Who or what do you base your world view on other than your own opinion? What or who is the higher authority and what if you are wrong?
If we Christians are right in assuming that man is a fallen creature in need of redemption, what flows out of that is that we do need someone outside of ourselves to define truth.
Your view seems to say, man is the highest source of truth and therefore, no outside influence is needed. We have demonstrated in history that left to oursleves, we end up destroying ourselves.
Robert criticizes the “total misrepresentation” of liberals by conservatives. Then he launches into a liberal tirade of “total misrepresentation” about conservatives. If he’s a spambot, Lauren, he’s needs a anti-hypocrite software update.
ok, talk amongst yourselves. Let me know when you get abortion outlawed.
I’m sure Heather’s talk radio regurgitations are more interesting and less provocative than anything “clever” I might add to the conversation.
In general, conservative Christians base their world view on what God (via the Bible) is defining as right and wrong. Bible says marriage betweeen a man/woman only, therfore, our world view is that gay marriage is wrong.
agreed.
If we Christians are right in assuming that man is a fallen creature in need of redemption, what flows out of that is that we do need someone outside of ourselves to define truth.
if there’s no fall, then there’s no need for redemption.
if there is no God, then there is nothing after death and therefore people live for the present
if there is no God, then there is no absolute right or wrong
Christians look toward God for guidance as to what is right or wrong. Without God, “truth” becomes what we want it to be.
Heather: I’m curious. How would you argue against the homosexual lifestyle without using scripture?
Posted by: angel at March 29, 2009 4:15 PM angel, this is what I asked Leah to show me. She seems to be okay with it, so I asked her to show me. Not give me an opinion of her own.
I’m not a troll or an ant- conservative spambot, and I have refuted the claims of anti-choice conservatives here many times.
First of all, being a liberal does not necessarily mean that you are an atheist, anti-religious, or an immoral, malicious, hedonistic gid-hating commie.
Or that you think that anything is acceptable and no basis for morality, or that you are unpatriotic, believe in marxism and communism, and think its okay to have sex any time you want with whomever you want with no regard for the consequences.
And being pro-choice does not mean that you WANT abortions to happen. Or that you support “infanticide”, and want to increase abortion as much as possible.
Being liberal does not mean that you hate god or Jesus and want to ban the Bible. Liberals aren’t opposed to Christianity per se or any other religion.
They only want people to keep their religious beliefs to themselves and not to try to impose their dogmas and social agenda on others or the rest of the country.
They (except the left wing wackos) believe that people should be free to do basically whatever they want as long as it harms no one else or interferes with their rights. They also feel that what consenting adults do in private is no one else’s business, and certainly not something for the government to pry into.
Pretty much live and let live.
They also don’t believe that when the government helps those in need it’s not socialism but good government.
They realize that unless the government does SOMETHING we will never help the poor out of their plight and that our schools will not improve with vouchers, but only by building more up to date ,well-equipped schools , renovating existing ones and attracting more high quality people into teaching by offering competitive salaries. Yes, this would cost an awful lot, but the alternative, leaving schools dilapidated etc is far,far worse.
We also know that if poor women know they can get the necessary help to provide good care for their unborn children, they will be far less likely to seek and obtain abortions.
What’s so terrible about this?
Hal, whatever. There are times I wonder if your story is even true. You’re probably some paid liberal plant. Although you are friendly, I just don’t really believe that anyone would waste so much time on a pro-life blog, and you still maintain that you like your situation the way it is!! If abortion would just go away, there are PLENTY of other things I could be doing with my time. If you and your wife are happy with your choice, then there isn’t much to discuss.
Hal, seriously. Do you really think comments like “ok, talk amongst yourselves. Let me know when you get abortion outlawed” add anything?
No. You say these things just to be an ass. You could add legitimate things to the conversation. Instead you make inane quips and spout liberal talking points.
I would LOVE for one of you pro-choicers to fully flush out your thought process. It hasn’t happened yet. Everytime we have a debate we get to the heart of the matter and then the pro-choicer runs away, only to come back a few days later and start over again.
Hal, if you want to add something to the debate, you need to actually finish a conversation. Making little jabs doesn’t do anything.
Lauren beat me to the punch.
I don’t know, People…I personally am just as against bashing liberals as I am conservatives. The Democratic Party has its flaws, just as the Republican Party has its flaws. Perhaps we ought to apply a man of peace and courage to this argument: Martin Luther King, Jr.
“All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.”
It’s kind of like racism. Were the Anglos, before the marches and protests of the 1960′s, in charge of society? Absolutely. Was every Anglo evil? By no means. Instead of saying liberals (Anglos in this analogy) are evil, say abortion (racism) is evil. Condemn the argument the hatred in the man but learn to spread love to the man himself.
Correction: That should read they also believe, not don’t believe when the government helps the poor.
They (except the left wing wackos) believe that people should be free to do basically whatever they want as long as it harms no one else or interferes with their rights. They also feel that what consenting adults do in private is no one else’s business, and certainly not something for the government to pry into.
Pretty much live and let live.
yes, I wish aborted babies could “live and let live” too.
you see, your mantra only applies to certain people.
It can’t possibly apply to everyone.
Lauren, there’s nothing to debate. That’s the funny part. You’re not going to win anyone over, I’m not going to win any one over. You really want me to talk about why abortion should remain legal? why? It’s not going to change your mind. You’ll reply and state your position, and that’s not going to change my mind. So, go stop abortion already. I won’t get in your way.
What’s the plan to ban abortion? We could debate that I guess.
Maybe insulting liberals will help.
Maybe praying will help
Maybe trashing Obama and complaining that he’s destroying the country will help.
Robert, Couldn’t care less about the poor and unwanted children? Get real. Did you know that child abuse has actually increased by 1000% since abortion was legalized? Why would things get any better for us as a country? Sometimes post abortive mothers develope an inability to bond with their other children. A lot of this stems from direct guilty feelings about her abortion. Abortion doesn’t prevent child abuse. Jesus Christ does.
Hal,
In your opinion have there been any criticism of PBHO on this site that were NOT baseless?
yor bro ken
Robert, I’m glad you came back. It seemed you were only interested in coming here and posting rambling diatribes against conservatives.
I would love to go line by line, but since you pretty much raised every bit of liberal/conservative disagreement we would be here forever.
Since the main focus of this site is abortion, let’s start there.
You say “deny women rthe right to an abortion while gutting ot eliminating
all government help to the poor, force women to back-alley abortionnists or to try to abort themselves, while women who can afford it easily fly of elsewhere for safe,legal ones.
They scream for the “right to life”, and then couldn’t care less about what happens to those poor,unwanted children who ARE born”
First of all, just because we don’t want our entire health care system to be government run doesn’t mean we don’t want the poor to have healthcare. That is a common misconception and I think it is one that needs to be cleared up right here.
Conservatives support some form of subsidized healthcare for those genuinely can not afford or obtain healthcare on their own. Under conservative government, almost any pregnant woman could obtain either Medicaid or Chip.
The problem is that these programs don’t work well. A college student might be unable to get prenatal care because her home state says she’s a resident of her college state and her college state says she’s a resident of her home state. Or she might have a huge lapse in coverage because she moves to a different area within her state during her pregnancy and the program is different in her new area.
I don’t know if you know this, but you can not simply call the health and human services department and have them immediately fix your problem. It takes months and months to get a simple address changed. It is a huge beuracratic mess.
Conservatives are simply saying that this is not the best solution for everyone.
This is not to say that we do not help women try to work with the system as it currently exists. I know that I personally have given advice to pregnant women about how to sign up for government services. Your idea that we “don’t care” about women or children is based on nothing but media charicatures and not reality.
Crisis pregnancy centers and maternity homes help women every single day. A local maternity home in my area will take in ANY woman who is considering abortion and even has an acredited charter school on campus to help the young women further their education. The women are allowed to stay in the maternity home for years until they are stable enough to move out on their own.
We care about women and children. We actively donate our time and money to help women and children. In fact, conservatives are generally far more charitable than liberals.
Before we move on, we need to clear up this HUGE misunderstanding that seems to be the underpinning of your entire view of conservatives.
Hal, that’s another cheap shot. You know that with Obortionation in office, abortion isn’t going away anytime soon. You have gotten your way, and you say that you are happy with your choices. What is there left to say to you?
Wow,
It has suddenly become a target rich environment.
All the usual suspects have been rounded up and they are now here to do battle.
Hal, excluded of course.
yor bro ken
I think that that’s a lovely point, Hal. There’s lots to do to fight abortion! Personally, since you mentioned banning it, I would recommend that we pass a new amendment to the Constitution which would lay out what is abortion and why it is banned; and also that very amendment ought to guarantee women prenatal care and education in how best to avoid pregnancy. All in all, it ought to point out that being anti-abortion is not the same as being anti-reproductive rights or anti-woman. That would be how I handle the situation personally, but all of us ought to consider that once abortion is made illegal (I have faith that it will happen), we still have to fight to reduce it since people will go to the same sleazy doctors from when abortion was legal for this reason or that. We have to focus on illegal abortion, too. Thoughts?
Which one you is the alpha humanist?
yor bro ken
Lauren, there’s nothing to debate. That’s the funny part. You’re not going to win anyone over, I’m not going to win any one over. You really want me to talk about why abortion should remain legal? why? It’s not going to change your mind. You’ll reply and state your position, and that’s not going to change my mind. So, go stop abortion already. I won’t get in your way.
Hal, you THINK your side has won. But they’ve only won a battle. We KNOW the war has been won because we believe that Christ triumphed over evil.
And we do change people’s minds – all the time. If both sides played fair, we would have won a long time ago, because we have the truth on our side – that truth is that a baby dies each and every time abortion happens.
But it’s not the way of evil to play fair. One needs to only look at what happened to the 9 year old girl in Brazil to see how deceitful proaborts are. One needs to look at the lies told, the false figures presented, the way laws have been manipulated to see how abortion became legal.
Still, we know in the end, good will triumph over evil.
Hal Snarked “Lauren, there’s nothing to debate. That’s the funny part. You’re not going to win anyone over, I’m not going to win any one over. You really want me to talk about why abortion should remain legal? why? It’s not going to change your mind. You’ll reply and state your position, and that’s not going to change my mind. So, go stop abortion already. I won’t get in your way.
What’s the plan to ban abortion? We could debate that I guess.
Maybe insulting liberals will help.
Maybe praying will help
Maybe trashing Obama and complaining that he’s destroying the country will help.”
Hal in case you’ve forgotten, several pro-choicers on this board have become pro-life. Conversions do happen. The “plan” is to change the hearts of as many people as possible until society views abortion as the atrocity it is.
The reason it is important to debate people like you is because it exposes the weakness in your argument. Ultimately, the pro-choice arguement has no philosophical, moral, or logical leg to stand on.
Robert, a big reason that the foster care system is so overcrowded is because a lot of these children still have legal ties to a biological parent. Abortion has put this country into a state of bondage. Life is cheap, and you can kill your own baby. It’s your call. Nobody ever thinks about the aftermath. The countless numbers of hurting women, men, grandparents….Abortion hurts us all.
The reason it is important to debate people like you is because it exposes the weakness in your argument. Ultimately, the pro-choice arguement has no philosophical, moral, or logical leg to stand on.
Posted by: Lauren at March 29, 2009 5:21 PM
there is actually NO argument in favor of abortion that is supportable, not philosophically, scientifically or ethically.
(A good example is prochoicers stating that a zygote is not human or even living.)
This is why prochoicers resort to personal attacks for the most part when they don’t like what is posted. As Heather stated it is a diversion tactic.
We also see that the bar for “acceptable” studies is set so high as to be unattainable, yet prochoicers are able to use studies with poor outcomes and methodology to back their claims.
This is yet another way that evil does not play fair.
I actually also blame abortion for an increase in substance abuse. This is part of the destructive cycle of satan.
Some one stirred up a hornets nest. The humanists are back and they are mad as hell and they are not going to take it any more.
I wonder what the precipitating factor was.
Was it criticizing liberals in general or PBHO in particular?
Tally HOOOOOOOOOOOO!
yor bro ken
Think about it. A lot of children are in foster care because their parents are substance abusers. That breaks my heart!!!
Liberals aren’t opposed to Christianity per se or any other religion. They only want people to keep their religious beliefs to themselves and not to try to impose their dogmas and social agenda on others or the rest of the country.
Robert, you did a much better job of stating your case this time. You have isolated the problem well when you say that you’re for religious freedom at home but not in the public square. That’s bullying, Robert. Do you leave your liberal views at home when you leave the house? Until the government repeals freedoms of speech and religion, Christians are entitled to air their viewpoints and run their institutions as they see fit.
They (except the left wing wackos) believe that people should be free to do basically whatever they want as long as it harms no one else or interferes with their rights.
The problem is that libs are setting the stage for some rights to be restricted in order to increase rights of others. That’s contrary to our constitutional republic. What “right” does a woman have to an abortion that supercedes my “right” not to assist her in getting one? If libs were concerned about interference of rights, they’d be just as concerned about my right of conscience as they would be about a woman’s abortion. But they’re not.
I like it when the hornets nest gets stirred. I just wish they would stick around long enough to finish a debate!
Hal,
Are there any criticisms of PBHO that have been posted on this site that are NOT baseless?
yor bro ken
RB,
We’ve had 36 years of legal abortion. If abortion truly solves the problem of unwanted children, poverty, overcrowded foster care, and child abuse, then why aren’t these problems virtually non-existent by now?
Mary, thank you. I only see it getting worse, not better. Like Mary has stated, why haven’t any of these problems vanished?
Liberals aren’t opposed to Christianity per se or any other religion. They only want people to keep their religious beliefs to themselves and not to try to impose their dogmas and social agenda on others or the rest of the country.
Except that secular humanisim is also a belief system which has been imposed on Christians. It’s deity is not God but the worship of self.
“Some one stirred up a hornets nest. The humanists are back and they are mad as hell and they are not going to take it any more.”
I’m not mad. However, look at the first two posts in this thread. An attempt to stir things up?
Tally ho indeed.
We’ve had 36 years of legal abortion. If abortion truly solves the problem of unwanted children, poverty, overcrowded foster care, and child abuse, then why aren’t these problems virtually non-existent by now?
Posted by: Mary at March 29, 2009 5:38 PM
oh, but Mary, proaborts DO claim to have made a difference in the lowering of crime by ridding the world of unwanted children!
Canadian abortionist Henry Morgentaler believes he has lowered the crime rate by providing abortions.
We’ve had 36 years of legal abortion. If abortion truly solves the problem of unwanted children, poverty, overcrowded foster care, and child abuse, then why aren’t these problems virtually non-existent by now?
Posted by: Mary at March 29, 2009 5:38 PM
Maybe too many women have declined to get an abortion due to arguments like you guys make here.
Personally, I don’t think abortion will solve society’s problems. (and even if it did, you’d still oppose it) What would help is if we could find a way that would reduce unwanted pregnancies before they happen. I’m guessing advances in birth control technology will settle the issue in another generation.
I’m late to the party but…
“We live in a democratic republic and to make that form of government work the way our founders intended, believers are obliged to compromise with unbelievers and vice versa. Rewriting history to make it seem as though such compromise is unnecessary is just a ploy to avoid it. ”
Here here Charles. The Constitution is chock full of compromises, it seems many people forget their history. This nation was founded on open debate and compromise, and will only continue on the path of success if it stays that way.
That’s coming from a Holocaust survivor:/
Hal, legalization of abortion has actually increased the # of abortions done on demand. 4000 abortions a day, Hal. Don’t you think that’s a bit much???
Heather, I hope you don’t mind me asking a hypothetical. And this is pertaining to a comment you made earlier…
I understand why you are against homosexuality because of your faith. I would like to know if you have a reason that is NOT connected to your faith to persuade those who aren’t religious that homosexuality is wrong?
And, this is an honest question, not me trying to start a fight or anything.
Fair question. I used to be a liberal type. I came into the understanding about right and wrong. I had gay friends. They were all living in severe dysfunction. I had to go, but I am not the type to commit a hate crime or anything.
Hal, 5:47PM
Come on, you’ve got to do better than that. Birth control was around long before Roe v Wade.
Ya think maybe abortion was and is used for birth control?
Hal, its abortion advocates who use overcrowded foster care and unwanted children as an argument. I would just like one of them to tell me why, if abortion solves these problems, these problems still exist after 36 years of legal abortion. If abortion truly solves these problems, by now they should be virtually non-existent, right?
Heather, sorry, but I don’t think you answered my question.
And, I don’t think you are a person who would commit any kind of hate crime.
jodes, I used to think that Christians were lunatics too, but God opened my eyes to truth. I even drove a friend to have an abortion 15 years ago. I have since repented of that. I also used to go to Planned Barrenhood for my own GYN services.
Except that secular humanisim is also a belief system which has been imposed on Christians. It’s deity is not God but the worship of self.
True, angel. I can’t help but recall what PBHO said during a 2004 interview.
GG:Do you believe in sin?
OBAMA:Yes.
GG:What is sin?
OBAMA:Being out of alignment with my values.
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/06/06/barack-obama-the-2004-god-factor-interview-transcript/
Mary-
Not necessarily, though I would be interested in seeing if the foster care numbers have had any sort of decline, and perhaps even a breakout of states vs their restrictions. Good question.
Dan: ” This nation was founded on open debate and compromise, and will only continue on the path of success if it stays that way.”
Im curious Dan, what exactly was the compromise on Slavery? Oh right…
Robert,
Care to point out even ONE time you have “refuted” a pro-life stance, unless of course you mean to take the literal meaning of “refute” and then who cares? I have personally shown your argument to be completely flawed only for you to completely ignore my points.
By the way, Ive seen Hal say many things that qualify him as a “very stupid person” so the definition of “moron” most certainly fits. Dont let his demeanor sway you to think anything else.
Fed Up-
From the bit of the transcript you posted, that sounds like a misspeak. “My values” could mean, as you are alluding to it, personal values which it would be more difficult to break, though its certainly possible to do fairly often (honesty vs a “white lie” for example) or he could have meant the values of his faith, in which case he holds those values as ‘his’ values, and its a matter of misspeaking/misunderstanding, etc.
Heather, I don’t think Christians are lunatics. I myself was brought up as a Catholic, and understand that all people have faith, but some do not have faith in religion.
I seriously am just curious to yours, and others, arguments. I ask for arguments without scripture because it is those who do not have faith in the scripture that typically are trying to be convinced by these arguments.
jodes, No. It’s my faith only. I’m done making up my own rules. I was tired of being miserable and then I came into an understanding of sin and negative consequences.
Mary, you’ll have to ask the “abortion advocates” who make that argument. I don’t.
Heather, I don’t know if 4,000 abortions a day “is a bit much.” We have 300 million people in this country. Is 4,000 a lot? It’s more than 2,000, less than 6,000.
Angel 5:43PM
I’ve heard about that one.
Kind of ironic that abortionist John Wayne Patterson was killed in what was ruled a mugging by police.
Abortion advocates have tried to make some kind of mystery killing, PL people perhaps?, out of this. However Patterson was killed in the middle of the night coming out of a porno theater in a very dangerous neighborhood. His cadillac, which the muggers were rifling, was likely a clarion call to every mugger within a 5 mile radius. If Patterson didn’t owe so much in gambling debts, he might have been able to afford a VCR/DVD player.
“Dan: ” This nation was founded on open debate and compromise, and will only continue on the path of success if it stays that way.”
Im curious Dan, what exactly was the compromise on Slavery? Oh right…”
The 2/3 compromise and the end of the international slave trade in the U.S. Then there was the Mason-Dixie line, of course, and then tension built up as it became more and more odorous. However, no one seems to remember the whole country actually did benefit from the compromise until people began perceiving economic inequality, it wasn’t even all about the rights of the slaves to begin with.
Hal,
That’s what I did. I asked Robert Berger. I’m still waiting for an answer.
Dan, I posted the link to the entire interview if you want to read the comments in context.
Heather, thank you for the honesty!
jodes, I’m not able to go on anything but scripture. I can tell you that I have had a lot of gay friends in the past. Were they fun? Sure! Were they nice? Yes. They just weren’t healthy people to be around.
So, what was the compromise ultimately?
What was the compromise on women’s right to vote?
You can be a typical liberal and avoid the question or you can be a real person and admit that although compromise is a huge part of our culture, that there is no and should be no compromise on human rights.
By the way, Ive seen Hal say many things that qualify him as a “very stupid person” so the definition of “moron” most certainly fits. Dont let his demeanor sway you to think anything else.
Posted by: Oliver at March 29, 2009 6:02 PM
Haven’t we all?
[seriously, Oliver, what's your problem?]
Heather, while I may not agree with everything you say, I appreciate your consistency and honesty… especially when it is an honest question.
Fed Up-
Given how earlier in the interview he says he adheres to Christian values, I’d say it’s meant as an allusion to that answer.
Dan 6:05PM
What good did compromise do slaves? Did it end the evil of slavery? What about those who were slaves and those who would be born into slavery?
Hal, don’t you think that if there were no abortion on demand, that maybe men and women might think twice about jumping in the sack?..I do.
My problem is with people who support an action that could theoretically cause the immoral death of another human without seriously considering the ethics driving the action. You are one of those people. So is Asitis, and so, it seems, are many pro-choicers.
I’m guessing advances in birth control technology will settle the issue in another generation.
Posted by: Hal at March 29, 2009 5:47 PM
I think women will eventually see BC for what it is – a poison that harms the health of women and the environment.
It’s not natural.
jodes, you’re welcome.
angle, I agree that BC isn’t natural.
However, I think realistically, if abortion becomes illegal, you will not get support for a ban, or illegality, or anything of the sort for BC.
I think that while you may be against both abortion and BC, it is more realistic to fight abortion first, and BC after the first victory.
Once abortion is illegal, then people will be more receptive to hearing about BC.
Angel, I’m thinking of “future birth control,” which hopefully will be safer for all concerned.
Oliver, you’re such a deep and serious thinker. That makes you better than the rest of us.
Actually, our different views on abortion probably stem from whether we see the loss of a fetus as having a moral component. Shall we debate that? yawn. Remember, liberals agree that abortion should be legal, but debate whether it is immoral.
Once abortion is illegal, then people will be more receptive to hearing about BC.
Posted by: jodes at March 29, 2009 6:18 PM
If abortion were illegal, I think you’d find people pretty committed to legal birth control.
“So, what was the compromise ultimately?
What was the compromise on women’s right to vote?
You can be a typical liberal and avoid the question or you can be a real person and admit that although compromise is a huge part of our culture, that there is no and should be no compromise on human rights. ”
There was no compromise because of democratic vote that made the change binding until another vote on the same issue is held, if ever (though for slavery it was required as part of the Reconstruction the South ratify the amendment, which helped it sail through).
“there is no and should be no compromise on human rights”
Glad you’ll agree to gay marriage then, seeing as how marriage has been declared a fundamental right.
“To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Loving v Virginia
Now replace race/racial with sex/sexual.
Some would say there can be no compromise on a woman’s right to abortion.
Mary-
“What good did compromise do slaves? Did it end the evil of slavery? What about those who were slaves and those who would be born into slavery?”
That was part of the problem, slave owners began forcing their slaves to have children because there was no other source. I think the end of the international trade was viewed by some of the founders as a general lead into the eventual end of slavery due to lack of a source, for lack of a better word. However, as I said, that failed.
Also, as for the compromise, they werent involved so it couldnt benefit them, the decision was made without them, unlike women’s suffrage or the civil rights movement
Hal, I wasn’t referring to directly after abortion becomes illegal. I think that for abortion to become illegal in the first place, many many many people have to change their minds about certain things, including when a fetus becomes a person.
Therefore, if enough people change their minds, and believe that fetus’s are person’s from the beginning, then more people may be ready to hear arguments against BC.
I am not saying it will happen, but I think that for BC to become a topic of morality, abortion would become illegal first.
I hope that all makes sense!
Jodes-
I would argue BC has already been placed into a morality topic, and that that ticks many people off. Look at the Pope’s recent announcement in Africa for one.
Dan, I haven’t seen that announcement… Do you (or anyone else) have a link for me to read?
Jode-
Ill see if I can find it. It was about condoms and AIDS in Africa.
Jodes-
Here’s two from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4081276.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7947460.stm
Thanks Dan!
‘We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”
So notes Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, in response to papal press comments en route to Africa this week.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTNlNDc1MmMwNDM0OTEzMjQ4NDc0ZGUyOWYxNmEzN2E=
Dan: “Glad you’ll agree to gay marriage then, seeing as how marriage has been declared a fundamental right.”
And your point is? I support gay marriage. You must think you are talking to someone else.
Complicate the issue as much as you want but the ultimate point is that human rights deserve no comprimise, so Charles little comment was another bullshit platitude and your support of it in light of this debate is just as empty.
Hal: “Some would say there can be no compromise on a woman’s right to abortion.”
Exactly, which is why there needs to be a discussion, but as I already pointed out and as you supported with your own comments, you do not wish to discuss and are nothing but a simple animal, operating by base instincts.
Also, this has nothing to do with being a “deep” or “serious” thinker. My whole concern is that you think at all about the issue instead of simply killing your own offspring because it “seems” like an okay thing to do.
Dan and Fed up, thanks for those articles.
I didn’t realize how much discussion there has been into the morality of BC.
I am also surprised to the research on condoms and HIV. I was told that condoms would reduce the risk of getting HIV if used properly.
I should have specified, that I was talking about hormonal BC, as opposed to condoms.
Jodes,
Most people understand the debate on BC to be on hormonal BC.
“I am also surprised to the research on condoms and HIV. I was told that condoms would reduce the risk of getting HIV if used properly.”
It does, HIV is passed through bodily fluids, so it reduces but does not eliminate that risk
I personally would be willing to defend birth control were abortion made illegal, so long as it is not the kind of “birth control” that abortion could fit under. And I am unsure why, but ask this out of pure respect and acknowledgement that I, too, support abstinence but believe that birth control ought to be available- why are you, Angel, against birth control? I understand that there are some forms that kill, and I’m skeptical to even refer to that as birth control, but if you could tell me, I would really like to know. Thanks
.
Woman’s right to abortion.
Let’s call it what it is.
Women’s right to kill her own growing child.
Dan, at a population level, condoms are not effective at preventing the transmission of HIV.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=59741709526&h=GcU0I&u=H-xOm&ref=nf
Speaking of great cartoonery, Did you know that Katherine Lopez and Jonah Goldberg plagerized eachother?
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/19021.html
Uh, YLT, your link goes on to explain that Townhall just accidently posted Jonah’s article using Katherine’s byline. Of course, I doubt anyone here cares about either columnist one way or another.
Hey PIP:
I was rereading some of our conversations on previous posts and I have to admit I have been waytoo harsh on you.
The pattern seems to be that when we disagree we both start throwing insult bombs.
For me to respond in this way is just not right, so I apologize.
Let’s keep talking, and I hope more civilly toward each other.
first of all, there will be no “safer” BC because it’s not the way a woman’s body was designed
We are made to have babies. And we are made to united/bonded to a man through our sexuality.
BC goes against a woman’s femininity and works against both ends as we are discovering.
Therefore, BC won’t work.
Secondly, we will never rid ourselves of abortion without first getting rid of the contraceptive mentality
As long as children are viewed as “punishments”, and as long as people seperate sex from babies, abortion will be around.
It goes back to “truth”.
What is the “truth” about our sexuality and about our bodies?
angle, in my opinion, it goes in the opposite direction. You cannot “fight” contraception while abortion is legal. To me, it is unrealistic.
*angel, not angle
except Jodes, contraception came first.
It was the use of contraception that led to increased sexual promiscuity which in turn led to more unplanned pregnancies and the desire to “coverup” the illicit sexual activity.
Couples using contraceptives for the most part, do not expect to become pregnant. They figure they’ve got that base covered. A couple not using contraceptives expect the possibility of pregnancy at some point. It is the former mentality that leads to abortion.
angel, I agree with you, BC came first and that led towards abortion becoming legal.
However, I think that it has to be fought backwards, starting with abortion. Because BC came first, it is more accepted in today’s culture. If you cannot change people’s minds on abortion after 30 years, what is the chances of changing minds about BC if it has been around longer?
re: Lauren at March 29, 2009 7:36 PM
If that was the case then why is K-Lo’s byline still under “Jonah’s” column, while K-Lo keeps quiet. Sounds like the conservative movement idea hat is empty. Everything from here on out is old ideas. I never thought that conservatives would embrace recycling so whole-heartedly.
yes, I understand your position jodes, but I still believe that until we have a different perspective on our sexuality, we will never rid ourselves of these two evils
I love your comment, Mrs. Carla. No one ever finishes their sentence when they say, “Woman’s right to choose.” A woman’s right to choose what? Whether or not she wishes to own her child? Or whether or not she needs to sacrifice her college career for her child? The first is unthinkable and as for difficult choices that women face…that’s not a choice. I prefer “Child’s right to life.” Since, you know, abortion isn’t a right but living is.
.
.
Oh, and thank you very much for your opinions, Angel.
Why thank you, Vannah!!
The smartest thing “abortion rights” advocates ever did was to coin the phrase “pro choice.” That shifted our attention towards the act of choosing and away from what was being chosen-the dismemberment of a human being in utero.
Chuck Colson
Cue the trolls and their blah, blah, blah, Watergate and Colson, blah, blah, blah……….
Hey Vannah,
RHIANNON!!!!!
Rhiannon!
Squee!
I listened to that today!
I work out to Stevie…….Edge of Seventeen! Oh yeah!!
She’s my favorite songwriter. “Storms,” “Beauty & The Beast,” priceless…
.
Is she your favorite or do you just like her a lot. By the way, before you answer, I might say that if Stevie is not your favorite…you’re dead to me.
re: Carla at March 29, 2009 8:38 PM
You alredy know that your leadership diminishes your cause, when your spokespeople are complicit in actual atrocities, the theoretical atrocities that you allege seem to pale by comparison in importance. Why is it that all the crooks run to Jesus AFTER being complete frauds and expect forgiveness?
If the guy had moral courage, he would have run to Jesus BEFORE trying to distroy democracy. It makes Jesus look rather cheap -like a rehab clinic for washed up hollywood stars that only leaves people cosmetically better, but still dead on the inside.
YLT,
Yet again grasping at straws.
“People go to Jesus after doing bad things…and this is relevent in some way!”
Or how bout this gem,
“They posted the article under the wrong name! Therefore Conservatives are bad!”
Is this really the best the liberal/pro-choice argument has to offer?
YLT, I didn’t get that.
“They posted the article under the wrong name! Therefore Conservatives are bad!”
Is this really the best the liberal/pro-choice argument has to offer?
Posted by: Oliver at March 29, 2009 10:36 PM
Obviously conservative morals are so corrupt that they don’t even recognize plagerism anymore?
Well, I guess this isn’t news because conservatives long ago gave up on orginal thought – .”>http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=72122>.
How can you expect to speak for the “pre-born” if you can’t even make up your own one-liners anymore?
I have to wonder now if this site isn’t Ghostwritten too…
What are you even talking about? You make little sense when you post YLT. Keep on making things up and ranting.
A crook runs to Jesus after being a complete fraud? Or did you mean after a man repents of sin? I’m still not seeing the problem.
What good is “repenting of sin” if you haven’t given it up. It just makes a fool out of God. Is there an exemption from the “Go and sin no more ” bit just because you agree with him? That’s pretty weak. I never thought of God as a partisan operative, now I know better.. thanks for the heads up.
What sin hasn’t been given up?
YLT, you sound like something is bothering you. What’s wrong? I’m not familiar with you.
when your spokespeople are complicit in actual atrocities
“Were” complicit, YLT. Not “are”.
Why is it that all the crooks run to Jesus AFTER being complete frauds and expect forgiveness?
How can you be forgiven if you did no wrong?
It makes Jesus look rather cheap -like a rehab clinic for washed up hollywood stars that only leaves people cosmetically better, but still dead on the inside.
Jesus healing brings our former dead selves to life. Not the other way around.
What good is “repenting of sin” if you haven’t given it up.
Who are you referring to, who you are accusing of repenting without repenting? The word “repent” in itself means to “turn away from”.
You cannot possibly repent of a sin unless you have given your sin up, because the very word means that you have turned away from that sin…so your statement here makes no sense. I am confused as to what your point is to Carla.
By the way, YLT, we are all sinners. Not just the ones who make it more apparent. Not a single one can run to Jesus without having some sin to be forgiven of.
Carla and Vannah: too bad Stevie Nicks lost her voice with age. I too am a Stevie Nicks fan!
Although I don’t think that she lost her voice- Nicks rules the world, Angel. Hooray! The more fans the merrier! We can have like, a three-person party where we just post random Nicks lyrics and videos…and that’s about all that we can do.
YLT,
You never disappoint!!
I knew you would go after Colson and ignore the truth of his words. Don’t shoot the messenger.
God will not be mocked. He will never be made a fool. I “should have” run to Jesus before I had my own baby killed by abortion. Didn’t. He took me unto Himself when I was broken by it. Sweet, sweet freedom in Christ!!
When I say that people should keep their religious beliefs to themselves, I am not trying to interfere with your expressing your opinions or talking about your religious beliefs. What I mean is that the social agenda of conservative Christians is against everything that America was founded on.
They are using THEIR religious beliefs as an excuse to try to make abortion illegal, and want to do many other things such as interfering with the civil rights of homosexuals and other very bad things.
You conservatives Christians have absolutely NO right to do this. Let’s face it; you may not admit it, but you are definitely trying to impose theocracy on America, and that is WRONG.
Abortion is NOT murder. It’s ludicrous and offensive to compare it to slavery.
Do you realize how common abortion was before Roe v Wade? And that abortion was already legal in some states?
Do you think there would have been no abortions if abortions were not legal here?
And that we would actually have 40 million more Americans today? First of all, some would have miscarried anyway, or died of infant mortality, or abuse and malnutrution.
Let’s face it; womnen will seek and obtain abortions whether they are legal or not. You cannot escape this fact.
Don’t delude yourselves into thinking that abortion will ever be stopped. And please don’t give me this nonsense about murder being illegal, and that we can’t allow abortion to be legal for the same reason. That is a totally specious and disingenuous argument.
And why don’t you do something really constructive instead of calling abortion murder and showing pictures of aborted fetuses etc ?
And Republican economic and social policies aren’t going to help things and reduce abortion and create conditions in society where women will be less likely to seek abortions. And iof abortion ever become illegal here in the US, it will probably increase greatly, rather than be stopped. You conservatives are just totally unrealistic and out of touch with reality.
The situation regarding abortion won’t change or get better unless you get a grip on reality.
RB, get a grip on what?
OK Robert. There is a ton of sloppy thinking in your above diatribe, but let’s just concentrate on one thing you said:
“Let’s face it; womnen will seek and obtain abortions whether they are legal or not.”
What is your syllogism here?
(1) If people will do something whether it is illegal or not, then it should be made legal.
(2) Women will have abortions whether they are illegal or not.
Therefore, abortions should be legal.
Is that how your argument plays out? Is that what you’re trying to say? Robert, what you have to understand is that behind every argument are principles. There are general principles that one applies to a specific context, in the case the question of the legality of abortion. I for one can not think of any principle besides the major premise (1) that I mentioned above that would lead to your conclusion. So if I have an incorrect syllogism, please provide the correct one that deduces that abortion should be legal from the fact that people will do it anyway starting from a general principle.
If however, you do accept that first premise, as you know, absurdity follows. What this shows is that the above argument is not based on reason and rational, but on parroting what you’ve heard other people say without giving it any thought. Seriously, the sloppy thinking needs to stop.
Robert Berger:
Before you make more ludicrous and uneducated statements as you did in this post I suggest you get a book and READ it: “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States” by Benjamin F. Morris. It’s over 1,000 pages long so I hope you won’t be posting for awhile until you digest the dcoumented facts of our founding and character of our government and the principles on which it is based.
In fact Mr. Berger, your characterization of our founding and early government is either a result of purposeful lying or your believing revisionist history. Either way it is a typical misguided Liberal viewpoint in trying to justify the kinds of evil you support be it abortion, gay marriage, etc.
You are the oppressor Mr. Berger for you want the government to make laws which prohibit the very practice of Christianity which in this world is the only protection we have from self-destruction.
Go ahead and make your laws and live your debauched life. We will never stop declaring the Gospel of Jesus Christ even if it means the loss of our very lives which it appears you wouldn’t mind one bit.
You are the oppressor Mr. Berger for you want the government to make laws which prohibit the very practice of Christianity
Thank you, HisMan, for stating it so concisely.
Don’t delude yourselves into thinking that abortion will ever be stopped. And please don’t give me this nonsense about murder being illegal, and that we can’t allow abortion to be legal for the same reason. That is a totally specious and disingenuous argument.
posted by the barking berger.
You have actually bit yourself going in a circle.
Abortion was illegal. Abortion is legal. The act is unstoppable. It’s a force beyound law and reason.
.
When abortion was illegal it can’t be stopped. When abortion is legal, it can’t be stopped.
Another win-win for the propagandist whose reality is based on never stopping voluntary acts of humanity.
Duh, dude, abortion is not a human action that’s involuntary.
And quite the pessimist you are too.
“(1) If people will do something whether it is illegal or not, then it should be made legal.”
Bobby, you’re usually more nuanced that than. You should realize the argument is a bit different than what you set out as the “major premise.” The argument is not as simple as “Abortions should be legal not because people will have them anyway.” If illegal abortions are more dangerous to women than legal abortions, than we must not make them illegal lightly, if women will continue to have them.
Self induced abortions are probably the most dangerous of all.
Like prohibition, the act of making making something illegal often makes things much worse. We didn’t end prohibition just because “people are going to drink anyway,” we ended it more because of the criminality and violence than sprang up. (and, yes, it didn’t stop people from drinking, and people drank more and more dangerously–bathtub gin, for example)
So, (a) if abortion prohibition doesn’t reduce abortion, and (b)if the illegal abortions are more dangerous, you’d have to be pretty cruel to support such prohibition.
Now, I realize both (a) and (b) are debatable.
So, (a) if abortion prohibition doesn’t reduce abortion, and (b)if the illegal abortions are more dangerous, you’d have to be pretty cruel to support such prohibition.
Now, I realize both (a) and (b) are debatable.
Posted by: Hal at March 30, 2009 10:55 AM
Yes, they’re debateable because the use of alcohol was declining during the prohibition of alcohol. Afterall, Hal, since the pro alcohol lobby won the history, you have been fed their version of history.
But, again you appeal to the “cruel factor”, which is emotional. Since the re-legalization of alcohol, millions(25,000 a year) have died from drunk drivers. Works both ways dude. Plus, most rapes, robberies, murders are committed under the influence of alcohol.
As for the violence, it never stopped amongst those who are simply outlaws. They moved into union organizing, where the Kennedy’s went after them. But, their daddy was a criminal, and amongst the criminal element, murder is legal.
Besides, it was the “women’s movement” that argued for Prohibition. Just as the women’s movement argued for making the murderer of their own legal.
But then Hal, it’s a question begging argument. If something is wrong and people hurt themselves by engaging in said wrong action, that doesn’t somehow make the action not wrong anymore. So my problem is in assuming that abortion is wrong. But then there is nothing to prove, so why give an argument as to why abortion should be legal? We have to ask ourselves why we would be making abortion illegal in the first place. The bottom line is that Robert’s argument doesn’t address the real issue which is whether or not the unborn have rights. He just assumes that they don’t and argues that abortion should be legal based on that fact, which if true, NO ONE would deny. If the unborn are not human or not persons, no one would want to prohibit abortion. I would say fund it, advertise it on TV, etc. etc. But when one starts by assuming that the unborn have no rights and argues from there, it is question begging.
And even looking at your (a) and (b) arguments, Hal, are they based on general principles that would be defended in any situation? Would you say
(a) if _____ prohibition doesn’t reduce _____, and (b)if the illegal ______ are more dangerous, you’d have to be pretty cruel to support such prohibition.
where you insert any activity there? Rape, theft, molestation, etc? If somehow it were true that making rape illegal would also make rape more dangerous, would that be grounds to support it? No, because rape is always and in every way wrong in-and-of-itself. That is why an argument along these lines doesn’t make any sense. Take care friend.
Bobby, a similar argument about the rape prohibition does come up when the death penalty is considered for rapists. Some argue that if the penalty was the same for murder, the average rapist would then murder his victim since there would be no harsher punishment and his chances of getting away with it would be greater.
Thus, increasing the penalty for the crime actually makes the crime more dangerous.
Not exactly analogous.
In general, however, I agree with you. If abortion was a wrong like murder or rape, it should always be illegal.
Mr. Berger, again, I think that you’re assuming that all pro-life advocates are conservative, Christian, and out to get you. For example, I am a moderate. PrettyinPink, from what I gather based off of her posts, is quite liberal (I could be mistaken, though), and I know an atheist who is anti-abortion and even intense pacifists of all beliefs are anti-abortion. You also suffer under the delusion that being anti-abortion means that once it’s illegal we will consider our work done. We’re against all abortion, Mr. Berger, legal or illegal. We feel that its legality is only a reflection of the lack of equality in American law and, furthermore, you do not reserve the right to own another human to the point of abortion, male or female. You consider us violating your rights?
It is not, Mr. Berger, a violation of your rights to stop you from violating another’s rights. If you are so keen to debate the matter further, then come onto the discussions more often than you do now and actually debate rather than tossing out self-righteous rhetoric as though you know right from wrong and we who live down in the middle of poverty, in our attempts to defend our rights, know nothing of how the world can work because we’re cleary not the awesome moral compass that is pro-choice.
Abortion is legal and wrong.
Wasn’t it the Kennedy’s who benefitted and profiteered and continue to benefit and profit most from prohibiton of all families in the country?
Do you think it a coincidence that they represent the most heionous of Catholics who support abortion rights?
It is no coincidence.
The History of’ Personally Opposed But …’
The Pelosi-Biden line on abortion and “the-personally-opposed-but” philosophy, finds its oratorical ancestor in then presidential candidate John F. Kennedy’s speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960. Kennedy said he would never permit his religious faith to inform his public-policy decisions. But the Kennedy connection to legal abortion went beyond mere words. Legalized abortion wasn’t merely the work of feminists. A group of leftist Catholic luminaries, Lawler writes-which included Father Robert Drinan , the pro-abortion Jesuit whom Pope John Paul II ordered to give up a seat in Congress, and Father Charles Curran , whose dissent from Catholic teaching on human sexuality and the encyclical Humane Vitae was condemned by the Vatican-brainstormed the moral, political and theological justification for it.
Drinan, Curran and other leftist theologians met with strategists for Robert F. Kennedy’s 1964 senate campaign at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port, and there hatched a new teaching that abortion was sometimes permissible as “the lesser of two evils,” and that “a blanket prohibition might be more harmful to the common good” than allowing some abortions because political leaders might “impose their own private views on public policy. …The skillful operatives of the Kennedy family would round up the votes to end restrictions on abortion and eventually provide public subsidies. The Jesuit theologians would provide protective cover” by subverting Catholic teaching at universities and in Catholic publications. “Thus, the basic lines of ‘pro-choice’ rhetoric were sketched out by Catholic theologians, at the residence of America’s most famous Catholic family, nine years before the Roe v. Wade decision .”
If however, you do accept that first premise, as you know, absurdity follows. What this shows is that the above argument is not based on reason and rational, but on parroting what you’ve heard other people say without giving it any thought. Seriously, the sloppy thinking needs to stop.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 30, 2009 10:00 AM
Ha! I can just see what your children are in for! You will be taking no prisoners.
Thanks for the interesting posts.
My favorite “parroting” is “I’m for choice!”
And what “choice” would that be?
Now, Hal, why is it that bad to engage in that sort of conversation normally? You dont have to post incendiary comments.
Hal: “Some argue that if the penalty was the same for murder, the average rapist would then murder his victim since there would be no harsher punishment and his chances of getting away with it would be greater.”
Although I actually enjoy this sort of logic puzzle, I do have to say that the argument assumes that the criminal acts based on the legal consequences of those actions. There is a lot to be said over how much a criminal actually considers the weight of punishment. Certainly there is a distinction between a fine and life in prison, but Ive seen some solid arguments backed by research supporting the notion that there is little or no distinction in a criminal’s mind between many years in prison and the death penalty.
In other words, the quoted argument above assumes that a significant number of criminals stop and consider whether or not to murder the victim post-rape based on several variables. I would argue that most, if not all, rapists and murderers act regardless of the specific consequences. It also assumes that a significant number of rapists are capable of murder. It could be the case that many or most rapists are capable of rape but not of murder. All in all, the position is a bit too mechanical for my common sense to take. I cant imagine rapists making calm calculated decisions based on the punishment. Of course, the numbers could bear out a different story.
Hal :”In general, however, I agree with you. If abortion was a wrong like murder or rape, it should always be illegal.”
Now this I find interesting coming from you. Do you care to now consider the debate over the morals of abortion? Dont consider a problem of divergent premises. I understand that you dont believe in the Christian God necessarily, and would never expect you to share that premise. Instead, consider the “debate” over the best application of the premises we DO share.
All in all Hal, I do apologize if you keep this up. Of course, it takes a lot more than one or two posts to convince me you are different from the Hal who posts hundreds of asinine posts.
Robert Berger,
I think you may be one of the worst pro-choicers Ive ever seen. Do you ever actually stick around and listen to the opposition? I dare you to stay and post for a few hours on night. Name your time and we can talk it out. Im sick and tired of the drive-by posts of so many here. Dont stir the hornets nest in the first place…
Oliver:
You are a master at logic.
Oliver + Bobby = super heroes!
HisMan: we just need a name for them (other than the dynamic duo!)
I appreciate the compliments, but Bobby’s parsimonious responses far outclass my own. Im learning every day though…
Man, I had to look that word up, Oliver… thanks!
Im sure there is no need to clarify, but I meant it in a positive way. I know it can be interpreted negatively depending on the definition…(I double checked to make sure I used it right
)
How ’bout Studly and Dudley Do Right?
Studly:
Didn’t mean to leave you out of the love fest but not bad for a Catholic boy.
(I didn’t want your head to explode).
God does love you.
Angel:
You have an appropriate name.
Studly and Dudely! Wow! Of course, their superpowers are those of the mind! (This means you guys have to wear helmets/headgear with zigzag lightning!)
BTW, does this mean Bobby that you will getting back into spandex and lycra (Dear lord, I hope not!)???
“I do have to say that the argument assumes that the criminal acts based on the legal consequences of those actions…”
Agreed.
thank you HisMan, as is yours!
Angel:
For the record and, so we are not accused of misspelling, thereby disqualifying us from participation is any moral debate, I think it’s Dudley not Dudely.
I wouldn’t want anyone with a name like Oliver to be called a “dude”. Know what I mean, Angle?
So do we agree now?
Bobby bam bam Bambino is now Studly and Oliver the olivet discourse, is now Dudley. And of course, use of these names is optional as terms of endearment only.
Does Jill second the nomination?
As far as their wardrobe Angel, we can only work out one thing at a time, patience is the operative word here.
oh dear. So sorry. I’m doing some computer testing on another browser and I was distracted.
Studly and Dudley.. gotcha
wardrobe, yeah. Bobby, will be a problem…..(hehe)
Oliver + Bobby = super heroes!
or
Oliver + Bobby = whiz kids!
Jasper.
Your post on JFK was quite informative.
During the communist reign in Russia, the “church” was a tool of the government, which promoted abortion. The reasoning for abortion of the “leftist” priest, was gained from their comrades in the Russian Orthodox church.
But, the official church was unable to counter their total domination of the “religious minds” of the Russians, by one group of “commrades”.
Those worthless “babuskas”. Their grandmother’s always informed them that the priest was not “telling the truth” in matters of their religion. Soo, even though the babuskas, who never got to see the fruits of their works, since they died before the total collapse of the leftist religionist ideology, they were remembered by their grandchildren and “their faith” is alive today.
The Russians suffered for 75+ years with a “official church”, that was promoting abortion, and have once again regained their religion from the social humanist.
If you trace the beginning of abortion/personally opposed Catholics to the Kennedy era, you’ve got about two more generations to either go the way of the mainline Protestants, or regain your religious identity which was always opposed to abortion.
I bet on the later outcome.
Just had to respond to Robert, even though he’s a troll:
“Conservatives… call for the restoration of our ‘freedom’ while calling for the government to pry into our bedrooms”
Robert, we have no interest in what goes on in bedrooms other than our own. No one here wants to make homosexuality or other sexual practices illegal, I think. We recognize that people have a right to choose them. We just don’t want it to be legal to sell every product you might want to use because of your sexual practices, or to kill children that result from your sexual practices. Unlike liberals, who seem to enjoy speculating on those who choose to have children in abundance.
“take away rights from homosexuals,”
Even if you think that they ought to have the right to marry, they currently do not.
“arbitrarily censor and ban any book, magazine, movie, TV show or website etc those consider ‘Indecent’, even though not everyone agrees on wgat [sic] is indecent.”
As opposed to the left, which goes by the universal standard of political correctness in its censorship. Censorship is a little strong, for some of these. Not wanting a book in a public library isn’t censorship. Not wanting a movie or TV show where I or my children might accidentally watch it or flick past it isn’t censorship. Wanting explicit websites to end in .prn isn’t censorship. If it is, the left is even more guilty, because it wants to keep everything of an even remotely religious nature out of schools and public property.
“The [sic] also want to make non-christians second class citizens,”
No.
“force students in school to prey [sic] the Christian way even if they are atheists or agnistics,”
Offering an opportunity to pray isn’t forcing it. And I’ve never heard of offering a time of prayer being limited to “Christian prayer”–whatever that means. How do atheists prefer to pray (or prey)? Your side wants to keep students from expressing religious ideas in their art, speech, work, or play. Or maybe I’ve misinterpreted you–I believe no one has a problem with students keeping Kosher or being vegetarians, though.
“deny women rthe [sic] right to an abortion”
Guilty as charged (except it’s not a right)
And the left want to keep people from having more children– or is it just minorities? Go ahead and explain why we are funding forced abortion and sterilization in China. I guarantee you I can find 10 people in 10 minutes who want to sterilize the Duggars.
“while gutting ot [sic] eliminating all government help to the poor,”
First, you are wrong that we want to eliminate all of it, and second, you are wrong in the implicit assumption that government help is the only or best help. Many believe that private charities can offer more efficient and personalized service, and that people will support the best charities most, and more charities, when they have more of their own money due to lower taxes. Many charities refuse to accept government money because it would hamstring their ability to help people spiritually as well as materially.
“force women to back-alley abortionnists or to try to abort themselves, while women who can afford it easily fly of elsewhere for safe, legal ones.”
No, we want back-alley abortions to be illegal too. Well-kept secret, I know. Abortion is not a need like food or clothing. Those who now abort, if abortion were illegal, largely would not abort. If they did, the abortionists would likely be the same ones aborting now, likely in the same places. Safe? No, but not much less unsafe than now.
“They scream for the ‘right to life’, and then couldn’t care less about what happens to those poor,unwanted children who ARE born,”
Which is why so many are willing to adopt any child who would otherwise be aborted.
“Don’t want the government to help any one who is poor or out of work because that’s ‘socialism’.”
Or maybe because it is the place of private individuals, the church, and private charities. You don’t know what we do in real life at all. Conservatives are more generous with their private money and time than liberals, in general.
“Many also want to make comntraceptives illegal even though this would only GREATLY INCREASE abortions and create a black market in contraceptives.”
Actually, I only want abortifacients to be illegal, not contraceptives. Nice straw man. Not to mention, you assume that the rate of extramarital sex would remain the same, and the rate of marriage would remain the same, if abortion and contraception weren’t available. When this was the case, however, less people had extramarital sex, and more of those who had premarital sex (at least, if they got pregnant) got married. While this might not sound better to you, it does to me. My brother-in-law had premarital sex, got his girlfriend pregnant, and–GASP!–married her. They have three beautiful kids and no plans to divorce because of their “forced” marriage.
“They want the death penalty even though this will never reduce crime and make us safer and will only risk executing the innocent.”
Many conservatives, especially pro-life conservatives, don’t want the death penalty. And how can it not reduce crime? Lower recidivism at least.
“They delude themselves into thinking that charities and the private sector will be able to provide for all those in need.”
You know this is a delusion how?
“They demonize homosexuals and hysterically claim that there is some kind of sinister gay plot to ‘recruit’ kids and molest as many as possible.”
You say this when the Left insists schools teach homosexuality is equal to or better than heterosexuality, and you don’t want public schools to even allow prayer because that’s a fundamentalist Christian indoctrination technique, as is mentioning that not everyone believes in evolution? Can’t have it both ways. You want to keep Christianity out of schools; we want to keep the religion of secular humanism out of schools. If you think that’s impossible, that only proves that it is there.
“They want funfamentalist Christianity and THEIR interpretation of the Bible to be the basis of US law, even though thios is totally contrary to what the founding fathers intended.”
Um, no. Can’t remember where I first heard this, but:
If Christians want to roll back laws to the way they were in the 50′s, that won’t make us a fundamentalist theocracy unless we were a fundamentalist theocracy in the 50′s.
“Most were deists, and vehemently opposed to religion getting power.”
Great. With freedom like this, who needs tyranny?”
Posted by: Robert Berger at March 29, 2009 4:07 PM
Not gonna bother with that, but didn’t want to be accused of leaving out context.
Oliver, I’d be glad to duke it out with you and expose how hypoctritical and misguided anti-choicers are.
I don’t want to take rights away from Christians or the government to do this.
But the government, private citizens and the ACLU MUST prevent fanatical self-righteous Christians from getting power in this country and setting up a theocracy, which is a definite risk in America.
While I don’t agree with everything the ACLU does, they are basically right, and religion must NEVER get the power in this nation.
I don’t try to force my agenda on any one else; heck;I don’t even have an agenda as such. I don’t want to interfere with Christians in any way. I have no problem with them going to church,worshipping as they choose, engaging in church activities ,doing projects etc, as long as they don’t try to force their social agenda on me,others and the rest of this country.
You just don’t understand anything about the founding fathers. None of them was the kind of Christian you are at this site and others of its kind.They religious views were totally different for yours, and this is a well-dicumented fact.Just read them.
You’ve taken their comments on religion completely out of context and used them as a pretext for having the government make laws based on YOUR religious views.
OK Robert. When you say Oliver is trying to push Christianity on the government or whatever, in what context are you talking about? Is it in outlawing abortion abortion? Because you’re just making accusations above with no substance. WHAT laws and regulations does Oliver wish to impose that are only religious in nature?
Robert: “Oliver, I’d be glad to duke it out with you and expose how hypoctritical and misguided anti-choicers are.”
Lets do it then! Here we go.
Robert: “I don’t want to take rights away from Christians or the government to do this.
But the government, private citizens and the ACLU MUST prevent fanatical self-righteous Christians from getting power in this country and setting up a theocracy, which is a definite risk in America.”
I have just one simple question for you. What does Christianity have to do with abortion?
Robert: “While I don’t agree with everything the ACLU does, they are basically right, and religion must NEVER get the power in this nation.”
Heres another one. What does religion have to do with abortion?
Robert: “I don’t try to force my agenda on any one else; heck;I don’t even have an agenda as such.”
Oh come now. You dont support ANY laws that interfere in people’s lives? What about taxes? What about laws punishing theft and murder? Heck, what about traffic laws? All of those interfere with our lives. Are you to suggest that you are an anarchistic communist? If so, I applaud you. Im sort of in the same mindset. The problem with abortion is not about what should the government do or not do, but about keeping consistent with the already established laws and ethical premises.
Robert: “I don’t want to interfere with Christians in any way. I have no problem with them going to church,worshipping as they choose, engaging in church activities ,doing projects etc, as long as they don’t try to force their social agenda on me,others and the rest of this country.”
What does Christianity have to do with abortion?
Robert: “You just don’t understand anything about the founding fathers. None of them was the kind of Christian you are at this site and others of its kind.”
Who says I am Christian?
Robert: “They religious views were totally different for yours, and this is a well-dicumented fact.Just read them.
You’ve taken their comments on religion completely out of context and used them as a pretext for having the government make laws based on YOUR religious views.”
Okay now this is the last straw. I have NEVER even ONE time used Christianity as a premise to support the pro-life movement. In fact, I have SPECIFICALLY argued that the pro-life movement should strictly appeal to SECULAR ethics when debating the legality of abortion.
You have done nothing to expose us “anti-choicers” as hypocritical. You have only exposed yourself to be a dishonest piece of sh*t.
I mean seriously. Are you just a liar or are you mentally disturbed? How can you so freely acuse me of something I have never done? Come back when you actually want to debate the ethics of abortion.
Mr. Berger, I don’t think that anyone here knows what you are speaking about anymore. You say that you’d be more than happy to debate the pro-life people here but, speaking of hypocrisy (if you don’t mind my pointing out yours)…you make a quick post and then quickly leave. You never even stay. Debate someone here and prove just how amazing and totally perfect that you are as a pro-choice individual because we all know that that particular movement has been such a savior- oh it’s never wrong! It’s got such great morality, if only we could all be so morally clever.
No, Mr. Berger, anti-abortion has nothing to do with religion since it’s basic common sense and science which provides the basis for our arguments. Why don’t you argue science instead of spouting out information that you think makes you look compassionate, usually information regarding the poor.
You just don’t understand, Mr. Berger, the kind of agony that people are put through just to try and survive while people like you slap the sticker of “liberation” on it and call it good. I’m sorry, Mr. Berger, I respect you, but you simply don’t understand poverty as much as you seem to claim to understand it.
Jodes@5:51:
The argument against male homosexuality from a strictly secular viewpoint:
It is bad for your body. It can cause dysfunctions of the rectal area. It is far more likely to spread disease than heterosexual sex.
Also, monogamy is extremely uncommon in the male homosexual community, which contributes to the spread of disease (even long-term relationships are not usually monogamous).
I don’t know if there are many arguments against female homosexuality from a secular perspective.
Dan@5:59:
I am pretty sure the number of kids in foster care just keeps going up.
Robert:
“And iof abortion ever become illegal here in the US, it will probably increase greatly, rather than be stopped.”
That’s just ridiculous. It will be greatly reduced. Not enough, perhaps, but saying it would increase is silly.
Thanks HisMan for your apology and I too will do my best to avoid insulting you in the future.
Vannah, yes I am quite liberal! Haha. This makes me a pretty easy target around here. *shrug.*
If you didn’t know this, I’m working on a documentary about pregnancy and higher education (specifically at my school but with broad applicability). I wanted to have it out by Easter but my computer is in what Elizabeth and I call a ‘vegetative state’: it performs internet and office functions, but now it doesn’t recognize anything coming in from my USB or Firewire ports, and the HD/Logic board may crash at any moment. So, my movie that is on the external hard drive is now impossible to get to and do the final touches and narration. I hope that if I don’t make it until easter it will be released shortly thereafter.
PrettyinPink- your name is Kate, right? I mean, I could click on your website again…but I’m so lazy…
That sounds like a wonderful feature for a documentary. Is it full-length?
Sorry about your computer. That’s quite a funny way of describing it, though. Our house has two computers- one from the house and one from my mother’s work and both of them are currently suffering from Nibbled On Plug Syndrome (we have a puppy; rather hazardous for computers).
Any hoodle, when your feature is finished, you ought to tell me where to see it. It sounds quite fascinating.
Yup, my name is Kate
The documentary will be about an hour. I wanted it to be a bit shorter, but I had over 4 hours of footage to work with..it’s a bit hard to do less than one. It was really hard getting it down to one actually. And don’t worry, my computer has already recovered from a bout of NOPS–I have bunnies. They chew on everything. Last time, I had to get a new charger. Paul bit right through it, and sparks were coming out (he wasn’t phased at all). These bunnies are the toughest most expensive pets I’ve ever owned.
Oh, and you will know when it comes out. Jill told me I could write a feature article and link the youtube video with it
(I’m assuming she still will, she agreed to this a while ago lol)
I’ll watch it. It sounds great!
And, yeah, a random and stupid thought occured to me- are your bunnies named after The Beatles? You said “Paul,” so I thought…McCartney? Woo hoo! Hey Jude…
Close! Named after Simon and Garfunkel- Paul and Artie
Abortion is a very important part of the religious views of most conservatives.
They are determined to make abortion illegal again in America. This is why I and other pro-choice people are so vehemently opposed to them, but not the only one.
They are trying to impose the illegality of abortion on all women of childbearing years on this country.
To say that abortion has nothing to do with religion is the hight of hypocrisy.
Look at all these priests and ministers etc who are constantly mouthing off about how we must”end” abortion,as if this were even possible. And who call it”murder”.
how can it be”murder” when a woman takes a pill, and a few cells are lost?
This is an”abortion” and “murder”.
These wackos want to make such pills illegal. And the person here who said that women’s bodies are not”designed” for contraceptives has made a truly inane statement. She thinks that all women should be glad to bear children even if this would ruins their lives or kill them, and force their poor,unwanted chilfdren to live lives of misery and deprivation. She and the rest of you just don’t havce a grasp on reality.
And NONE of the founding fathers was religious in the sense that religious fundamentalists of America today are.
Just read what Jefferson and others wrote and you’ll see this.
Jefferson thought the whole idea of Jesus as the son of God by some virgin and the savior of man was ludicrous; just blind superstition.
And I repeat; the notion that the ACLU,liberals and others are out to”ban” the practce of Christianity is so ludicrous as to be beyond belief.
Robert, I was going to respond, but you haven’t said anything. Some religious people are opposed to abortion. That I got from above. So are you saying that abortion is only a religious issue and hence wanting abortion illegal would violate the separation of Church and state? Abortion is a religious issue just like baptism is a religious issue? Is that right? And yes, I am setting you up here.
Robert Berger, opposition to rape is merely based on religion, and nothing else. I’ll explain.
Opposition to rape is a very important part of the religious views of most conservatives. They are determined to keep rape illegal in America.
They are trying to continue to impose the illegality of rape on all men in this country, even though rape is already widespread and there is obviously no way to prevent it from happening.
To say that rape has nothing to do with religion is the hight of hypocrisy. Look at all these priests and ministers etc who are constantly mouthing off about how we must “end” violence against women, as if this were even possible. And who call it “assault”. how can it be”assault” when a woman takes a man into her home, and leads him on? This is a “rape” and “assault”. ha. These wackos want to keep such situations illegal. And the person here who said that women’s bodies are not “designed” for this type of treatment to their bodies has made a truly inane statement. She thinks that all men should be glad to leave women alone even if this would ruins their lives or kill them with loneliness, and force them to be deprived of sex. She and the rest of you just don’t have a grasp on reality. And NONE of the founding fathers was religious in the sense that religious fundamentalists of America today are. Just read what Jefferson and others wrote and you’ll see this. Jefferson thought the whole idea of Jesus as the son of God by some virgin and the savior of man was ludicrous; just blind superstition. And I repeat; the notion that the ACLU,liberals and others are out to”ban” the practce of Christianity is so ludicrous as to be beyond belief. Rape is a religious issue and nothing more, and the only people who oppose it are religious nutbags.
And yes, I am setting you up here.
Ditto that to my above post.
I hope it’s obvious.
Abortion isn’t part of my religious views, it’s part of my views on human rights.
I was against abortion before I became a Christian. I never would have gotten one unless it was to save my life.
Abortion is wrong because it kills a human being. Science says that a unique human being is created at the moment of conception. One moment there is no baby; the next, sperm meets egg and POOF! a new human exists. (POOF! is an expression, not a scientific term. But there are no other such POOF! moments in pregnancy.)
There are two ways to argue in favor of abortion. You can argue that the preborn child is not human, as I have refuted above. Or you can argue that the bodily integrity of the mother supercedes the child’s right to life, even though that child is a separate and unique human being. Be aware that the second does not allow you to argue in favor of late abortions or destructive research on embryos. (The first argument would obviate the necessity for this second; obviously if a fetus is not human, his or her mother may do as she likes with the extra tissue.)
“Your objections are religious” is not an argument. Our objections to abortion, as many have stated, are based on the scientific knowledge that a zygote at the moment of conception, and all subsequent stages of life, are human beings worthy of protection, and that their right to life is more important than their mother’s right to bodily autonomy.
Telling us what our motives are (when we have said otherwise) and then telling us that those motives are wrong is not an intelligent argument.
Did you know that, rather than being enslaved to evil, you can be freed by Christ? He loves you and wants you to join His family. I say this not because I want you to be “converted” to the pro-life side–though I do–but because my God has commanded me to reach out with love to all, and clearly your deepest, most pressing need is His love and forgiveness. He can help you with your anger and your hate, Robert; all you have to do is ask.
The comparison of abortion with rape is not only ludicropus but totally disingenuous.
No one forces women to have abortions. This is THEIR choice as it should be.
Rape is a horrible crime committed against innocent women, and sometimes men.
You people have done absolutely NOTHING to prove that abortion should be illegal again in America. And not only would this not stop it, it WOULD probably increase it greatly.
The fact is ,and no anti-choicers are honest enough to acknowledge this, is that far more abortions happen in countries where it is illegal than where it is legal. In every country where it was once legal and then outlawed, the result has been catastrophic, duch as in Romania under that megalomanical idiot Nicolae Ceausecu, who was executed for among many other horrible things, making abortion illegal.
Look at the most prosperous countries of Europe, cuch as Germany, Austria, the Netherlands,Belgium,Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries.
Conservatives love to rail at them because of their godlessness,licentiousness,alleged socialism and high taxes, and supposed hedonism, but the world’s LOWEST abortion rates are found here.
“No one forces women to have abortions.”
Tell that to the women I know that have been forced to have abortions, Robert. They were teenagers when it happened. One was 14 and was pregnant with twins and was FORCED by her parents to kill her twins. Tell them that they weren’t forced.
I NEVER would have had an abortion, had it been illegal!!!
(why am I even bothering with this comment??)
Robert,
I have no idea how to reason with you.
I should modify that statement to say that VERY FEW women are forced to have abortions in America. And those abortions you mentioned may have been unfortunate, but they were probably in the best interests of those poor young girls.
Yes, there have been a terrible number of forced abortions, but for the most part, they are a woman’s choice.
Very Few. For the Most Part. Probably.
Let’s see the facts, man.
The best interests of those poor young girls ended up looking like this…….depression, drug abuse, suicidal thoughts and attempts, nightmares, and fertility issues because of the forced killing of the growing babies inside them.
Get a clue, Robert. Seriously.
What I meant to say is that the vast majority of forced abortions have been in China, which HAS to limit its population or eventually face mass famine
Robert,
Why do you specifically ignore the posts that call you out on your ramblings? Why not show some guys and actually engage in a real debate?
Now that we know Robert supports forced abortion, can we stop taking him seriously?
I think Robert has some abortion experiences in his past. Did you force someone close to you to get an abortion?
No, I haven’t had any personal experiences with abortion, nor have I even made any young women pregnant ,after which they had an abortion. As far as I know, none of my female relatives or friends has ever had an abortion.
Having read a great deal on the subject and thought about it very carefully, I am convinced that the only way to prevent abortion is to keep it legal.
And like former president Ckinton, I believe that abortion should be safe,legal and rare.
Clinton was certainly no saint, and he has behaved reprehensibly at times during his life. But many sanctimonious republicans politicians, who hypocritically try to pass themselves off as paragons of virtue and models of integrity, have done things just a bad, and far worse.
At least Clinton had the sense to oppose making abortion illegal.
Well Robert,
I applaud you that you came back to at least try to discuss some things!! Good job!!
You may need to do a little more research. That SAFE and RARE stuff just ain’t happening. You have a lot more work to do, young man.
Robert Berger, why should abortion be “rare”?