Issues of Faith

[ElNono]

So vote against their propositions... it's your vote against theirs (fortunately for you... your numbers are growing larger with each passing generation).

How do you vote against an executive order or an attorney general opinion?

Christians are en led to shape and influence the laws that govern their land as much as the next citizen... it is a cons utional right granted to every voting citizen. Oh but you'll say, "that infringes the separation of church and state principle!!"

They sure are en led to shape and influence the laws, but the laws themselves MUST be religion-free. Otherwise you are breaking the separation of state-church.

[boutons_]

"Who ever said Christians wanted to implement a theocracy in the US?"

Forget talking, dubya is walking the theocratic walk, giving govt money to religious orgs that discriminate against employees based on faith, with the bizarre justification that not giving them the money would be a restraint on religious practice.

"Christian" supremacists are pushing hard to have laws, regulations, even a Cons utional amendment that make Christianity the official religion of the USA.

Christian-only displays (10 commandments, Nativity scenes) on govt property (no Stars of David, no Muslim moon/stars need apply)

"Christians" forcing ID/creationism/Biblical fairy tales into public school curricula as scientific.

"Christains" have been blocking condoms for Africa, "Christians" have been writing govt websites and do entation saying that sexual abstinence works in practice.

"Christians" have been pushing hard into Caesar's realm, very un-Christ-like.

The Christian supremacists/theocrats have a very active, and well-defined agenda to breakdown the US's church/state barriers. Denying it is a lie, but lying for Christ are good, godly lies.

[angel_luv]

I understand what his point was there. I'm just saying that as far as being a king or ruler or politician or whatever, Jesus wanted no part of it, and encouraged his followers to avoid it the same way he did.

Jesus' focus was on fulfilling the specific purpose God had for Him and He instructed His followers to each fulfill God's purpose for them.

If you look in the Bible, there are people in authority all throughout it whom God helped- Joseph ( served as second command to the Pharoah at the time; Genesis 41:41-43),Moses ( He led millions of people to freedom; Exodus),
Deborah ( she was a judge; Judges 4 &5), David ( God chose him to be the king of Israel when he was only a shepherd boy) 1 Samuel 16), Anna ( a prophetess at the time of Jesus' birth; Luke 2: 36-37) as well as Stephen, Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas ( those seven men were chosen by the Disciples to be head of the outreach committee of the fellowship of Christian believers; Acts 6:5),

Each of the above ( as well as many others, not mentioned in this post in the interest of keeping it semi- brief) made the most of the opportunities presented to them- using their God bestowed talents and giftings to give honor back to God.

[monosylab1k]

Jesus' focus was on fulfilling the specific purpose God had for Him and He instructed His followers to each fulfill God's purpose for them.

If you look in the Bible, there are people in authority all throughout it whom God helped- Joseph ( served as second command to the Pharoah at the time; Genesis 41:41-43),Moses ( He led millions of people to freedom; Exodus),
Deborah ( she was a judge; Judges 4 &5), David ( God chose him to be the king of Israel when he was only a shepherd boy) 1 Samuel 16),.

true, but none of the above were Christians.

And some of them lived in a Jewish nation created specifically for the Jews. The United States is NOT a Christian nation created specifically for Christians.

Anna ( a prophetess at the time of Jesus' birth; Luke 2: 36-37) as well as Stephen, Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas ( those seven men were chosen by the Disciples to be head of the outreach committee of the fellowship of Christian believers; Acts 6:5),

Each of the above ( as well as many others, not mentioned in this post in the interest of keeping it semi- brief) made the most of the opportunities presented to them- using their God bestowed talents and giftings to give honor back to God.

All of the did great things as Christians, but just like Jesus, none of them reached out for political office in the government.

[ratm1221]

Most??? Nice little generality... I take it broad strokes of the paintbrush are acceptable as long as they suit your argument.

I can only speak for the Christians I know. Let's put it like this, 9 out of 10 Christians that I meet treat the fact that I don't believe in a God as taboo, and usually don't want to be my friend.

So vote against their propositions... it's your vote against theirs (fortunately for you... your numbers are growing larger with each passing generation).

Christians are en led to shape and influence the laws that govern their land as much as the next citizen... it is a cons utional right granted to every voting citizen. Oh but you'll say, "that infringes the separation of church and state principle!!"

You would be singing a different tune if Muslims outnumbered Christians in the US and started voting in majority to chop thieves hands off. I'm sure you would be outraged and be crying that the Muslim faith shouldn't effect law.

I've stated this repeatedly, but maybe you hadn't read it yet. Wishing that someone's rights be denied simply because they don't agree with your worldview is a faschist concept.

If you think that by me saying that I don't want Christian beliefs influencing the laws that effect others that are not Christians somehow denies you your rights, there is something seriously flawed in your logical thinking.

Who ever said Christians wanted to implement a theocracy in the US? Do you honestly believe that is our agenda?

Last time I checked there was a fairly large politically motivated group called the Christian Right. Maybe you've heard of them. Maybe not.

[LnGrrrR]

Do you feel the same is true about a parent who continues to love thier rebelling, runaway child, even while the child continuously and delibrately rejects the parent and the parent's love?

Depends. Are you throwing that child into eternal torment when he dies if he hasn't confessed his love before that?

[I Love Me Some Me]

Scripturally, the Bible seems (IMO) to indicate government to have a limited role in our lives. Romans and Proverbs both provide reference to government's role...which is pretty much to ensure justice and equity. In other words, every person should receive fairness and equity, not that everyone should have the same status or the same wealth, the same access and the same privileges...that seems to be the emphasis nowadays. The Bible doesn't teach that everyone is en led to the same thing. What people obtain on earth should be a function of their contribution, not a function of the state's contribution. The function of the state is to provide an even playing field, in which everyone is equally protected to move forward. The state should reward those who do good, and punish those who break the law. But, once a level playing field is established, it's up to the individual to go from there. I think Abe Lincoln said something like, government establishes the conditions that allow an individual to rise as high as his cleverness or his hard work or his enterprise will take him. From my studies, that's what the Bible says about government.

I think when you allow the government to be responsible for equality (socialized healthcare, redistribution of wealth, etc...), it has to use despotism to accomplish that goal. You give the government power over you (taking your money and redistributing it as it sees fit) and it will exercise that power excessively and in an increasingly corrupt fashion, so much so that the people under that government can no longer effectively exercise self-direction of it.

All that to say that I think when someone claims to be a Christian, they should commit themselves to studying the Bible in a way outside of just memorizing scripture. Become familiar with the scriptures that talk about government, and try to learn the intent behind them. If people were to do this correctly, we'd have fewer people afraid of a "Christian" politician. Instead, they would see that the policies that "Christian" supports are good and just, outside of the fact that they are scripturally supported.

[angel_luv]

true, but none of the above were Christians.

And some of them lived in a Jewish nation created specifically for the Jews. The United States is NOT a Christian nation created specifically for Christians.

Please read:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.
By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise.
For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.
And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.

People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own.
If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return.
Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,
even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."
Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.

By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.

By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph's sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.

By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions about his bones.

By faith Moses' parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king's edict.

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh's daughter.

He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time.
He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.

By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible.
By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.

By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.

By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days.

By faith the pros ute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets,
who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.
Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison.
They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, des ute, persecuted and mistreated— the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

All of the did great things as Christians, but just like Jesus, none of them reached out for political office in the government.

Again, everyone has different opportunites in which to serve God.
Isn't it possible that in New Testament times there was not many if any opportunties for Believers to serve in politics?

Here is a more modern comparison:

Black women now have the right to vote, a right refused women a few centuries back.

In that sense, I have more opportunity now to make a difference than my my great, great, great grandmother had.
( Hopefully I used enough greats )

I believe Jesus wants me to use the ability I have to vote and, if He puts it on my heart, run for office- all the while giving glory to Him.

[Phenomanul]

Scripturally, the Bible seems (IMO) to indicate government to have a limited role in our lives. Romans and Proverbs both provide reference to government's role...which is pretty much to ensure justice and equity. In other words, every person should receive fairness and equity, not that everyone should have the same status or the same wealth, the same access and the same privileges...that seems to be the emphasis nowadays. The Bible doesn't teach that everyone is en led to the same thing. What people obtain on earth should be a function of their contribution, not a function of the state's contribution. The function of the state is to provide an even playing field, in which everyone is equally protected to move forward. The state should reward those who do good, and punish those who break the law. But, once a level playing field is established, it's up to the individual to go from there. I think Abe Lincoln said something like, government establishes the conditions that allow an individual to rise as high as his cleverness or his hard work or his enterprise will take him. From my studies, that's what the Bible says about government.

I think when you allow the government to be responsible for equality (socialized healthcare, redistribution of wealth, etc...), it has to use despotism to accomplish that goal. You give the government power over you (taking your money and redistributing it as it sees fit) and it will exercise that power excessively and in an increasingly corrupt fashion, so much so that the people under that government can no longer effectively exercise self-direction of it.

All that to say that I think when someone claims to be a Christian, they should commit themselves to studying the Bible in a way outside of just memorizing scripture. Become familiar with the scriptures that talk about government, and try to learn the intent behind them. If people were to do this correctly, we'd have fewer people afraid of a "Christian" politician. Instead, they would see that the policies that "Christian" supports are good and just, outside of the fact that they are scripturally supported.

+1

Why wouldn't people want "just" representation in government? Leaders of integrity, who tried with their very being to live out what they said. People who kept their promises, and people that couldn't be bought off. That would be the ideal candidate...

Unfortunately the amounts of money required to run for office today make that task prohibitively impractical, and such people really hard to find... which is why special interest groups and lobbyists end up tarnishing good-intentioned men and women.

[ElNono]

I believe Jesus wants me to use the ability I have to vote and, if He puts it on my heart, run for office- all the while giving glory to Him.

Now that's some scary right there...

[Shastafarian]

Now that's some scary right there...

I wonder if angel_luv knows why they called the Dark Ages the DARK AGES.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm still waiting to see if she'll answer my question about throwing her theoretical child into theoretical eternal torment...

There are two views of God. Either he requires we be good at heart, or he requires our submission. One is ultimately more important than the other in each view. It is the latter I do not like.

[jochhejaam]

This is why people cannot have rational discussions on this topic. You're not discussing, but passing judgement. You want to wrap yourself in the emotion of the issue as if your humanity is better than mine. That's fine. But I am not advocating my personal belief or choices I would personally make so much as I am explaining that from a legal and moral standpoint I do not presume to criminalize or hold myself superior to anyone else. The pro-choice position is very much about maintaining that no one gets to decide they have permission over the body of another. I'm glad that none of the women in your family encountered any serious complications from pregnancy. The women in my family are not quite so lucky as yours.

I disagree with your characterization of my opinion as "passing judgement", if the shoe fits, wear it, if it doesn't, don't. A large majority of abortions are done so because the woman or father of the child consider a child to be an inconvenience, you know, it messes with their mojo. To terminate a life for that reason is the heighth of selfishness, most would agree with that MaryAnn.
Regarding no one having the right over you body, I agree with that, but the fact is that the female body has been designed as the method of bringing "another life" into exististence, that life is a separate individual and is certainly deserving of the most basic of human rights, the right to live.
I'm sure that you are aware that the heart of the child in the womb starts beating after the 5th week of pregnancy;
So there are 2 separate and distinct heartbeats, that equals 2 separate and distinct lives, abortion unequivocally stops one heart from beating, that's taking a life.

Got a late start this morning, hopefully I'll get a moment or two this evening to further respond to your thoughts

[J.T.]

Hey guys long time believer first time poster here... I have a question. I believe that the Bible is completely true and if we don't do everything it says (even the contradictory parts!) then we're all going to . But I'm having a problem with the commandment about remembering the sabbath and keeping it holy. You see, the sabbath is actually Saturday, not Sunday, and I can't find a church that's open on Saturdays. Please help, I don't want to go to .

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=MaryAnnKilledGinger;2852656]

This sort of histrionics is exactly why the pro-life movement discredits itself. The more you make the issue play like a penny dreadful and paint perfectly average Americans as villains, the more you ensure that you are alienating the center.

I've embellished nothing, and other than that callous minority (the majority of Americans are opposed to abortion in one form or another) that screams for aborting a baby for any and all reasons, you citing these truths as "histrionics", brings discredit to your pro-abortion argument.

My conscience doesn't need easing.

And that fact was addressed when we categorized a certain minority of those who fervently push abortion for all reasons as soulless and heartless

No scientific evidence has proved conclusively that a fetus "feels" pain in the way you characterize it.

It has, and I submitted the medical information that backs this up. Hiding from truth, or ignoring truth, does not invalidate truth.

See above re: histrionics. I personally think it's indefensible that some people who hold personal beliefs based on things they cannot prove presume to hold power and judgement over their fellows on the basis of anecdotal and inconclusive evidence that does not meet the burden of proof set by our scientific and legal communities. I further find it hypocritical that such people do so despite the teachings of their own self-subscribed dogma.

More of the same from you, if you don't like the facts, disregard them as histrionics, and it's disingenuous to foist off the legal community as yours as I'm quite sure the R v W vote was 5-4, so almost half of the legal community disagreed with you, that means there is not a consensus

But what you and I think of one another based on a few volleys on a message board is hardly worth discussing. If you're just here to pass judgement, then the conversation isn't worth continuing.

You consider pointing out the facts of how developed a child can be when aborted, how much pain they feel when highly developed along with the fact that the heart begins beating at 5 weeks (which means that pratically all abortion stop a beating heart) as passing judgement. I, and a host of others, consider it inhumane, uncivilized, and primitive behaviour to the degree of being unfathomable.
Discontinuing our conversation is irrelevant to the argument, that fact show, that with few exceptions, abortion should be discontinued.

I'm sorry, was there a question, or were you just hoping for some contrite repentance after posting of an image intended to shock people into an emotional reaction?

We'll repeat it over and over, the image is what it is, a baby that can be legally aborted, most are shocked and emotional, as well they should be, the exception to those human feelings of emotion are with those who are hardened and calloused to the rights of unborn children to live.

Abstinence may be a 100% effective form of contraception and I have no problem with it being included in every sex education class. Abstinence-only programs, however, are massively ineffective. My argument fosters the belief that preventing unwanted pregnancy and disease benefits our entire society. People are going to "bang" and it is in my best interest that they do so as safely as possible.

Common ground.

I would never presume to preach to anyone about morality or any other topic. I was simply pointing out that holding hypocritical viewpoints doesn't help make a case for those who are trying to preach morality to others.

No problem, and I'm not certainly not one to hold such viewpoints.

That's twice now that people have accused me of being riled up while I've posted calm, rational responses. I think it's quaint that women with strong liberal opinions and the ability to reason them out at length should strike you as being riled up.

A little hyper-sensitive are we? I didn't say that you were riled up, I said "in case", and the theme of the comment centered on humor.

It's misogynistic to think you have a right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. That you don't like the word make it no less true. Part of misogyny is the mistrust of women. What could me more misogynistic than not trusting a woman to do what she wishes with her own body? Perhaps I should have taken the advice of those who posted previously. You don't appear to have any intention or desire to have a rational exchange on the topic. Ah well, live and learn.

Your definition of having a rational exchange consists of relenting to your arguments on abortion, arguments which I and and multiplied millions of others disagree with. You are consumed with self, to the detriment to the unborn child. You deal with valid argument by haphazardly flinging terms like "histrionics" and "misogynistic", dirty little tricks utilized by abortion advocates to draw attention away from the central theme of abortion; that the beating heart of a child is stopped and that a life has unequovocally, and unceremoniously been destroyed.

You've taken the "I am Woman, watch me roar" theme well beyond any plausible or reasonable level, if you want to roar, go ahead, I'm fine with that, but when that roaring goes beyond rational and sensible argument, that is, it doesn't stop until it consumes a child within the womb, then that facet of the roar, (and again, there are a few exceptions) needs to be eliminated.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I'm going to try to make this my last exchange on this topic for a while because even I'm bored with being abortion girl at this point.

I've embellished nothing, and other than that callous minority (the majority of Americans are opposed to abortion in one form or another) that screams for aborting a baby for any and all reasons, you citing these truths as "histrionics", brings discredit to your pro-abortion argument.

If you're going to use incendiary comments to make your point, have the wherewithal to stand by them. To sling insults out of one corner of your mouth and then pantomime civility out of the other is just annoying.

I began addressing you because you asked me specifically what I thought about an article you posted, and then followed-up with a question because you don't feel the pro-life movement is hypocritical for being anti-abortion but not necessarily anti-death penalty. You've since tried to bait me with all the "this is what a fetus looks like" shock tactics that pro-lifers have used to scare children and emotional people for decades. If you'd started out using such tactics I'd have just ignored you, but clearly this was my learning experience.

One again, I'm happy to let the character and merit of the points I've made stand on their own, but your editorial opinion is so noted regarding the "discredit" of my argument.

...that fact was addressed when we categorized a certain minority of those who fervently push abortion for all reasons as soulless and heartless

And you balk at being called judgmental? You characterize anyone who disagrees with you and your pseudoscience evidence as soulless and heartless. There's no middle ground. I can't present anything to you because all your thoughts are pre-loaded. I can't learn anything from you because you don't adhere to any consistent flow of logic or reason in regards to this topic. Further exchange is therefore moot. It was until it got boring.

It has, and I submitted the medical information that backs this up. Hiding from truth, or ignoring truth, does not invalidate truth.

You have supplied "truth" that is not conclusive and is hotly debated in both the legal and medical community. You've culled talking points and isolated facts from a vast array of research and embraced only those facts that agreed with you. That isn't truth, it's agenda. It would be impossible to link to all the medical information on whether or not a fetus is a "life." It's easy to link to one article and cite that as the definitive truth. But then the pro-life point of view is so often all about the easy answers. Admitting we don't know would mean the fundamentalists would have to life with possibilities outside their own "truths." Oh, the horrors.

One key difference between you and I on this topic is that I accept the things you've presented as part of a larger picture that is undecided and perhaps can never be proven. You insist your small personal library of information is the whole picture and disregard that which contradicts you. I can't make you see the bigger picture because I can't force you to think outside the bubble of your own morality.

I'm quite sure the R v W vote was 5-4, so almost half of the legal community disagreed with you, that means there is not a consensus...

Do you even get the irony of this? You're presenting your side as "the truth" and "facts" while at the same time admitting there's no consensus. My entire argument is based on the fact that there is no consensus and that your "evidence" doesn't meet the standards set forth by our legal and medical communities.

You consider pointing out the facts of how developed a child can be when aborted, how much pain they feel when highly developed along with the fact that the heart begins beating at 5 weeks (which means that pratically all abortion stop a beating heart) as passing judgement.

No. I have no problem with the medical information you've provided for consideration. While your language is slanted toward a singular point of view, that is not what I consider to be passing judgement. But, wait for it...

I, and a host of others, consider it inhumane, uncivilized, and primitive behaviour to the degree of being unfathomable.

This and the "soulless" and "heartless" comments are what I consider to be passing judgement. I don't understand what you're so bent out of shape about. You obviously enjoy passing judgement and your whole argument is based on the "evil" of abortion, so embrace it already.

Discontinuing our conversation is irrelevant to the argument, that fact show, that with few exceptions, abortion should be discontinued.

The true danger of people who think like you to our society cannot be overstated. When the very words "truth" and "fact" are twisted to characterize bits of information that are anything but, it represents a frightening state of affairs. Although it makes people like you flinch, facts and truths have standards and the information you've presented here doesn't meet them. You've presented opinion and possibility. Of themselves, perfectly valid, but it meets none of the criteria the medical or legal community demands for fact or truth. That it meets the lower bar of criteria you've set in your own mind is perfectly clear.

We'll repeat it over and over, the image is what it is, a baby that can be legally aborted, most are shocked and emotional, as well they should be, the exception to those human feelings of emotion are with those who are hardened and calloused to the rights of unborn children to live.

You balk at the implied insult you perceive when I address your words as histrionic and yet continue to all but call me hardened, callous, soulless and heartless. I don't fall to pieces at your fetus photo and I'm a hardened . I guess you prefer your womenfolk all weepy-like.

A little hyper-sensitive are we?

Callous, souless, heartless, and hyper-sensitive. Wow. I'm hitting them out of the park. Maybe I'm the anti-christ?

Your definition of having a rational exchange consists of relenting to your arguments on abortion, arguments which I and and multiplied millions of others disagree with.

I never expect anyone to relent to my arguments. Mostly I enjoy exchanging ideas and watching the reactions of people with fundamentalist mindsets (I don't consider fundamentalist mindsets limited to religion). It never ceases to amaze me how eager many are to pass judgement, call names, and erode the very foundation of the superior moral ground they claim to stand on. And, like yourself, how so many do so while remaining completely blind to it. This ability to rationalize combined with such selective sight is a phenomenon continues to intrigue me. This is what has convinced me in my life that making a "moral" argument is never enough and why I demand more from myself and those attempting to convince me of things. So, in a roundabout way people like you are what help me to keep myself centered. So, thanks and all.

You are consumed with self, to the detriment to the unborn child.

You have no idea what my sense of self is. I've never had an abortion and will never have an abortion. I believe that decision would be wrong for me. Unlike you, however, I don't presume to tell others what is wrong for them. You think I'm consumed with self for trusting others to their own judgement where you would rule over the body of others. One of us is consumed with self, but it isn't me.

You deal with valid argument by haphazardly flinging terms like "histrionics" and "misogynistic", dirty little tricks utilized by abortion advocates to draw attention away from the central theme of abortion...

Wow. You should look into spin as a career, because you're almost as good as the pros. I used "histrionic" after you opened the "soulless and heartless" door. And it's a perfectly valid word to describe your tactics and language. I've already proved you're misogynistic and you pushed that envelope even further with this. As for the "dirty little tricks" role, I'm not the one posting fetus photos to illicit emotional responses in a rational argument. I'm all about the sarcasm parade at this stage because you've all but invalidated yourself in my view, but up to this post I haven't been anything but straight with you.

that the beating heart of a child is stopped and that a life has unequovocally, and unceremoniously been destroyed.

See above re: irony and consensus.

You've taken the "I am Woman, watch me roar" theme well beyond any plausible or reasonable level, if you want to roar, go ahead, I'm fine with that,

I prefer to rawr. I never really liked Helen Reddy. The anti-feminist card is priceless coming from someone who got so miffed at the word misogynictic. Way to lean into that fall.

when that roaring goes beyond rational and sensible argument, that is, it doesn't stop until it consumes a child within the womb, then that facet of the roar, (and again, there are a few exceptions) needs to be eliminated.

Yeah, no passing judgement there. Hard to imagine I ever considered you judgmental. Your argument is not rational. Your argument is not sensible. I know many people who have rational and sensible pro-life views. You're a hysteric. That you don't know you're a hysteric is perfectly underscored by the way you amp up every time something doesn't fit into your snow globe of "truth." A fetus within a womb is not proven to be a human life. It hasn't been and possibly never will be proven. You cannot prove it medically. You cannot prove it scientifically. Your best legal argument is "better safe than sorry" and that just doesn't cut it when you're talking about curbing the rights of individuals. I understand these things make people like you foam at the mouth in frustration, but that's just the way it is.

Obviously I am troubled by the fact that these things are undetermined and indeterminable (any rational human being would be troubled by such ambiguities that center on the very nature of our existence), but I've arrived at my personal beliefs through logic and consideration of the whole library of information I've come across, not just the cross-section of slanted information that fits my preconceived notions. This is what you characterize as soulless and heartless. You would have others base their beliefs on slanted information and emotionally-charged photos. The prime difference in our arguments is that your view does not negate mine - it is merely one other possibility to be considered. My view, however, does negate yours. This is the danger of an all-or-nothing argument. One link breaks down and the whole thing crumbles. That is where the hysterics and name calling enter into play.

Look, I obviously I enjoy debating issues for discussion and I'm not afraid to be long-winded. And it's even kinda fun to have someone call me a rabid feminist for a while. But, I don't have any need to be agreed with on a message board. I'm just not that insecure. Whether my position is minority or majority doesn't weigh on me. I'm content that a person like you disagrees with me. And by a person like you, I mean someone who prefers to conduct emotional warfare because they cannot properly defend an argument. I think we've both presented our points of view. I'm happy to let mine stand for anyone that was bored enough to read through this and the rest of what I've posted.

So, unless you've got something more than calling me a new name, or presenting controversial information as "fact" I'm pretty much done here.

[El Jefe]

@MaryAnnKilledGinger

Well done

[MaNuMaNiAc]

After reading the entire 10 pages of this thread, all I can say with regards to MaryAnnKilledGinger is...

[~~~~~~]

MaryAnnKilledGinger for Secretary of State.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=MaryAnnKilledGinger;2860529]

If you're going to use incendiary comments to make your point, have the wherewithal to stand by them. To sling insults out of one corner of your mouth and then pantomime civility out of the other is just annoying.

I stand by everything I've posted, and I'm not at all concerned by your being annoyed with my characterization of abortion activists, a characterization that I consider fair and accurate.

I began addressing you because you asked me specifically what I thought about an article you posted, and then followed-up with a question because you don't feel the pro-life movement is hypocritical for being anti-abortion but not necessarily anti-death penalty. You've since tried to bait me with all the "this is what a fetus looks like" shock tactics that pro-lifers have used to scare children and emotional people for decades. If you'd started out using such tactics I'd have just ignored you, but clearly this was my learning experience.

That you feel baited by my what I post is out of my control, and showing a picture of a child in the womb at 5 months wasn't done for shock value, nor was it posted for your benefit (this isn't a private conversation) MaryAnn, we are addressing each other, but each of us are also posting for whomever may be curious about the intracacies of our respective positions.

And you balk at being called judgmental? You characterize anyone who disagrees with you and your pseudoscience evidence as soulless and heartless. There's no middle ground.

They are my opinions and I believe them to be truthful, however, regarding abortion, truth appears to be relative to which side of the table you are sitting. And I adhere to my "opinion" that abortion activists, and the fanatical adherents who are educated on the life in the womb, yet still push abortion for any and all reasons, as being heartless and soulless.
Lets make a deal, I'll allow you to voice your opinion without whining about it, if you'll afford me the same allowance.

I can't present anything to you because all your thoughts are pre-loaded. I can't learn anything from you because you don't adhere to any consistent flow of logic or reason in regards to this topic. Further exchange is therefore moot. It was until it got boring.

I can't prevent you from presenting anything, nor would I wish to, and I'm not attempting to teach you teach you anything, nor are my thoughts "pre-loaded" as you imply (you're being judgemental MaryAnn). It boils down to me I believing in the absolute that human life in the womb is sacred, and you don't believe that.

You have supplied "truth" that is not conclusive and is hotly debated in both the legal and medical community. You've culled talking points and isolated facts from a vast array of research and embraced only those facts that agreed with you. That isn't truth, it's agenda. It would be impossible to link to all the medical information on whether or not a fetus is a "life." It's easy to link to one article and cite that as the definitive truth. But then the pro-life point of view is so often all about the easy answers. Admitting we don't know would mean the fundamentalists would have to life with possibilities outside their own "truths." Oh, the horrors.

As previously stated, I believe in moral absolutes, I'm well versed on the pro-abortion talking points, and they don't merit me softening my view that abortion (and again I have to state that their are a few exception) is barbaric.

You're not satisfied with my views, I'm not satisfied with yours, do you really consider that a valid reason to get in a knock on fundamentalism?
Your argument is well thought out, well presented, but you'll have to be content with the fact that it has brought nothing new in the way of a revelation to the "right to terminate" argument, you have not presented any compelling arguments that would suggest that abortion is nothing more that an inhumane taking of a life.

One key difference between you and I on this topic is that I accept the things you've presented as part of a larger picture that is undecided and perhaps can never be proven. You insist your small personal library of information is the whole picture and disregard that which contradicts you. I can't make you see the bigger picture because I can't force you to think outside the bubble of your own morality.

MaryAnn, I have no library of information, indeed, the compelling force behind my opining on this issue is my strong belief in an unassailable right of a child in the womb to have life, freedom from the tyranny of the abortion's doctor scalpel, freedom from being dismembered and discarded as if he or she had no value, the same freedom and opportunity that you and I were given.
For that I am totally unapologetic.

Do you even get the irony of this? You're presenting your side as "the truth" and "facts" while at the same time admitting there's no consensus. My entire argument is based on the fact that there is no consensus and that your "evidence" doesn't meet the standards set forth by our legal and medical communities.

I do not see any irony here MaryAnn. I'm not bound to the interpretation of 5 SCJ's, and I find nothing compelling in the way of medical information that should cause me to waver in my opinion.

This and the "soulless" and "heartless" comments are what I consider to be passing judgement. I don't understand what you're so bent out of shape about. You obviously enjoy passing judgement and your whole argument is based on the "evil" of abortion, so embrace it already.

You've falsely passed judgement on me as being "bent out of shape" MaryAnn, in the future I'd appreciate it you would refrain from such..., cuts both ways, eh?

How many times are we going to revisit this MaryAnn? (this will be the last form me) If the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn't, don't.
They're merely opinions, and in light of that, try to relax.

The true danger of people who think like you to our society cannot be overstated. When the very words "truth" and "fact" are twisted to characterize bits of information that are anything but, it represents a frightening state of affairs. Although it makes people like you flinch, facts and truths have standards and the information you've presented here doesn't meet them. You've presented opinion and possibility. Of themselves, perfectly valid, but it meets none of the criteria the medical or legal community demands for fact or truth. That it meets the lower bar of criteria you've set in your own mind is perfectly clear.

The "real" true danger, and what's truly frightening is when "people like you" (stereotype volley returned) attempt to portray those who are in disagreement with their viewpoints, as being a danger to society. That scares me MaryAnn. You give me the impression that you wouldn't have a problem if my freedom of speech on this issue were stifled or squelched.

You balk at the implied insult you perceive when I address your words as histrionic and yet continue to all but call me hardened, callous, soulless and heartless. I don't fall to pieces at your fetus photo and I'm a hardened . I guess you prefer your womenfolk all weepy-like.

Oh, so you're gonna throw the ol' "you prefer weepy women" argument at me, eh?
No MaryAnn, I prefer a good fight from my woman, and she has not disappointed. By her own words her mother "runs the whole ball of wax" with her husband, she did the same in her previous marriage, and wanted the same in our marriage. By nature, I was engendered with a passive, shy personality, but after marrying my lovely wife, my survival instincts kicked in and it was everything I could do to hold my own. FWIW, I do 95% of the grocery shopping and cooking (and enjoy both), and we split laundry and dishes duty. She pretty much cleans the rest of the house while I take care of the mechanical work and outside work.
Just though I'd share that.

Callous, souless, heartless, and hyper-sensitive. Wow. I'm hitting them out of the park. Maybe I'm the anti-christ?

C, S, H and H-S on the issue of abortion, yep, that's my opinion, the A-C, nah...do you believe I am...


Work beckons, and my "weepy woman" insists that I get my rear in gear, (she's actually already at work). Sayonara

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=MaryAnnKilledGinger;2860529]

I prefer to rawr. I never really liked Helen Reddy. The anti-feminist card is priceless coming from someone who got so miffed at the word misogynictic. Way to lean into that fall.

Not miffed at all MaryAnn, merely correcting your mis-characterization of me.

Yeah, no passing judgement there. Hard to imagine I ever considered you judgmental. Your argument is not rational. Your argument is not sensible.

You have no problem with terminating the life in the womb, I have a big problem with it. The irony here is in you pontificating about rational argument out of one side of your mouth while out of the other side of your mouth being a frontline cheerleader for the abortion Drs. that are sucking the life out of the child in the womb.

I know many people who have rational and sensible pro-life views.

Paraphrase: "I have convinced those without strong convictios that abortion isn't such a bad thing".

You're a hysteric. I understand these things make people like you foam at the mouth in frustration,

From what you've written, I've come to the conclusion that you are amused by abortion, and every 20 seconds or so you get this silly grin on your face and experience a rush of excitement. (hyperbole volley returned).

A fetus within a womb is not proven to be a human life. It hasn't been and possibly never will be proven. You cannot prove it medically. You cannot prove it scientifically. Your best legal argument is "better safe than sorry" and that just doesn't cut it when you're talking about curbing the rights of individuals.

So you would have us believe that the child in the womb could be born as a monkey, cat or a dog? Of course it's a human life MaryAnn. You and I and billions of others have proven that.
You are in denial and rationalize abortion for the singular selfish, self-centered reason of "having control of my body", which is fine until that control of "your body" ends the lifeline of another.
Two beating hearts, two individuals.
On curbing the rights of individuals, terminating the life in the womb is the ultimate curbing of individual rights.

Obviously I am troubled by the fact that these things are undetermined and indeterminable (any rational human being would be troubled by such ambiguities that center on the very nature of our existence), but I've arrived at my personal beliefs through logic and consideration of the whole library of information I've come across, not just the cross-section of slanted information that fits my preconceived notions.

I assume you've given the best of your "vast knowledge" into this discussion, and if that's the case you have brought nothing new to the argument, nor have you brought anything that would be considered the least bit persuasive to those that highly value the life in the womb.
Considering the fact that you haven't brought anything new, let alone something to be pondered in the abortion debate, I have no recourse but to categorize your overall argument as being one big disappointment.

My view, however, does negate yours.

Only to the fanatical abortion advocates, activists, abortion Drs., and that sector of delusional feminists that put their own interests above everything else are my views negated. Their motto? "I'm not my childs keeper".
Lovely.

Look, I obviously I enjoy debating issues for discussion and I'm not afraid to be long-winded. And it's even kinda fun to have someone call me a rabid feminist for a while. But, I don't have any need to be agreed with on a message board. I'm just not that insecure. Whether my position is minority or majority doesn't weigh on me.

If you weren't insecure why bring up being; "weighed down by" your views being in the minority or majority, or not bothered by your so called "need to be agreed with" why would you even bother to bring these things up?
I'll write them off as a freudian slip.

So, unless you've got something more than calling me a new name, or presenting controversial information as "fact" I'm pretty much done here.

Unless you have something more to bring to the table, other than the "I'm pro-abortion because it's my body and I can do whatever I want with it (and with the other body that resides in me)", or more patently false accusations of me being a "rabid", foaming at the the mouth, misogynisticic hysteric, I too am through here.