Home - List All Discussions

an irony

by: salspua

It occurred to me that lesbians must be the most moral group of women as far as pro-life goes. We almost never have abortions because we do not conceive accidentally (barring rape).

It struck me as ironic because many people judge homosexuals as immoral.

sal

reply from: ChristianLott

Did you say moral or oral?

Anyway, being anti procreation (for yourself or others) is plainly immoral.

reply from: salspua

Being lesbian is not anti-procreation. When lesbians have children, it is very deliberate.

And what about straight couples who choose not to have children - are they anti-procreation and therefore immoral?

sal

reply from: ChristianLott

No doubt. Very sad you've given up on God's biological plan for you.

So long as you insist abortion be legal, you avail yourself nothing.

Yes.

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

But humans arent viewed as breeding machines or anything....

They just need to breed or go to hell.

reply from: salspua

I've had three children - may I go now?

And thank you, SpiritualisticBuddhist. I understand now that in this world of over 6,000,000 people, it is my duty to continue to reproduce.

sal

reply from: ChristianLott

If you're still healthy,the answer is no and you know it.

reply from: chooselife

I would have to disagree. I would be more inclined to say that nuns are the most moral group of women as far as pro-life goes. People do not judge homosexuals as immoral. If you believe in God...and you believe in His teachings....then He is the One that has made the judgement. We simply reiterate what He has taught. The same goes with murder, adultery, incest, rape, stealing, lying, etc... I will admit though that I do not believe that God has a hierarchy of sins in that if you murder you are much much more worse than a liar. A sin is a sin is a sin. I am no better than a homosexual because I am a heterosexual...but I can still refer to God's word and say that it is wrong. Just like I can tell my children that lying and stealing are wrong. Me telling them this does not mean that I am saying I am perfect or better than they. But as a follower of Christ my goal is to be like Him and support the ideals that He supported. A woman who has an abortion is not necessarily an evil person....but the act of abortion is certainly an evil act. Just like I can say that a homosexual is not necessarily an evil person....but I can say that act of homosexuality is evil (not because I say so...but because God says so). I don't consider myself to be evil....but I do sin and each sin I commit is evil because it is contrary to God. Sorry to get off topic but I just felt it necessary to explain my thinking on this.

reply from: salspua

ChristianLott-
Wow. Really? You're serious?

What about other aspects of myself that I have to contribute? Is baby making all I'm good for to your understanding? It's wrong to stop before menopause? If I had babies until menopause, I'd probably be almost 70 by the time the last one was grown. I love my three, and I am done with raising little children. (Mine are 15, 17, & 20.) I will not continue to forsake myself.

Chooselife-
I appreciate your differentiating a person and a person's actions. Still, I have to question the word of God as transscribed and translated by human beings within their own historical contexts. If God loves me (He does) and if homosexuality is wrong (it's not), then why would He create me to be wrong? It doesn't make sense. If I were creating people, I would create them the way that I want them to be. Wouldn't you? As a child of God and made in His image, I think it makes sense.

What has God personally told you about homosexuality? I'm not talking about priests or ministers - they are men. I'm not talking about authors - they are men. Can you separate that from your direct connection with God? I can tell you that coming out of the closet has brought me more peace and happiness - ease in my own skin - than I had ever experienced trying to be straight. That sense of peace and centeredness when I am quiet and still is God affirming to me that I am in the right place. I trust this direct connection more than anything a person tells me.

Anyway, that's my experience.

sal

reply from: yoda

I think that's a bit of a stretch. One can be partly responsible for abortions simply by giving advice, council, advocating, and donating time and money towards "reproductive rights issues". And I believe some lesbians do plenty of that, right?

reply from: salspua

That's weird. Where does the statement that lesbians give a lot of time and energy to abortions come from?

reply from: yoda

My bad, I should have said (and I will correct it) "some" lesbians give a lot of time and energy to "reproductive rights issues".

reply from: AmericanPie

I take high offense at your "judgment" of me, Lott.

JESUS didn't marry OR procreate. I guess he's immoral too? And don't give me that crap about him being God. While he was on earth he was MAN. As in LIVING FLESH. With MALE genitalia, no less. Unless you believe the stuff about him and Magdalene? Hmm? So tell me...was he immoral for not marrying and procreating?

If we compared personal morals, chances are I have higher ones than you ever had or will have. So you can take that Biblical codswallop of yours and flush it straightaway.

reply from: Hereforareason

Oh dear.

How I treasure my Mother!!!!

About Lesbians being the most moral as far as abortion goes, what is their view on abortion? most of them. And why do you believe as you do? (Lesbians and gays are fine)

Amber

reply from: ChristianLott

Chooselife wrote:

Until she repents of her sin, she IS an evil person. Let's not play semantics, okay.

Salspua wrote:

It takes two to tango, Salspua. So yes, baby making is all WE (men and women) are good for.

Congratulations. Done raising little children? That's why you only really need to a few times. You did the hardest work raising the three. You learned. Now it's your oldest children's turn to learn - from their younger brothers and sisters or from their own children.

Do you understand? Having the first set of children helps you have the next set because they all contribute to their siblings welfare. If they don't have this to do, they will most likely fall prey to serious sin. They must all have serious responsibility to eachother on a personal and immediate level to learn what they're here for. If not, they run the risk of forgetting the meaning of life.

It's simple.

I'm glad you have this 'direct connection' with God. The path is narrow. Broad is the path to sin.

AmericanPie wrote:

You asked the question. Take offense to the question you don't like the answer to, not the messenger.

Does it make a difference?

Here is the plain, God's honest truth to why we are here - sex.

Don't ask me another question if you don't want to hear the answer.

Unsolicited judgment of me. You are in the wrong here.

reply from: salspua

I treasure my mother, too, and my children love me very much. Where the comment around no longer forsaking myself comes from is that when one has children, especially young ones, every moment is about or for the children. I love mine very much - I gave them every bit of me when they were small. From great prenatal care to drug free births, breast feeding for years, washing cloth diapers for years, baking bread, sewing their clothes, sewing Halloween costumes, going to great lengths to raise them at home instead of daycare in their preschool years, reading to them, reading about parenting, volunteering in the classroom for years. I did these things freely and because I wanted to. But there was no time for me. I ignored my own needs in taking the best possible care of them when they were the neediest. It's my turn now.

Re: lesbians and abortion, I didn't mean to imply anything about general views - I was talking about actions. I was talking about very responsible procreation. There are no accidents. Any child a lesbian conceives is very deliberate, very much wanted and prepared for. Many also adopt.

I was thinking about why women have abortions, and unintentional pregnancy is a huge factor. Men and women with drug or alcohol addictions often make very poor choices around procreation and create some of the saddest existences for their children. One can say, well, just don't have sex unless you intend to conceive, but this does not allow for the fact that sexuality is a part of normal adult behavior.

Birth control sometimes fails, as happened to my friend recently. She miscarried the baby, but said she would have had an abortion because she already has a preschooler and really wants her to be the only one. She has gone to Planned Parenthood to obtain more reliable birth control. The only other way to guarantee that she has only one child would be never to have sex again until menopause. That's more sacrifice than most are willing to make.

I'll agree, some do. Reproductive rights is more than abortion. Reproductive rights is also about access to birth control, even as a minor. It also involves trying to stop female genital mutilation in contries where it still is practiced. It is about the right to health care. If women don't stand up for themselves and each other, who will stand up for them?

sal

reply from: ChristianLott

You are deluding yourself. All of that was for you. I've already explained - as your children get older, they take care of their younger siblings and you have more time to pursue separate interests while maintaining a 'supervisor' mode over all of them. You did the hard part and had fun doing it and scarred yourself off of the full commitment. There's a lot we all miss in life. I hope after I die I can continue living, understand?

Woopiti-doo.

If you vote pro abortion (or don't vote at all) you murder fifty million babies. It's that simple.

Butcher.

Birth control IS abortion. Birth control to minors is exploitation and often rape, and also should be grounds for child molestation.

Thanks for clearing that up (sarcasm). Don't you know it's not men cutting off their clit - it's other women? So you're not talking about women's rights or reproductive rights, you're talking about a very narrow political agenda to get as many women sexed up as soon as possible which - wouldn't you know it - leads to an INCREASE in abortion.

Abortion up six point one percent for 2003-2004. PP must be doing something right, but it's not keeping women from getting pregnant that's for sure. Their condoms were found to be the most easily breakable. Their 'sex ed' classes are designed to get children to make light of sex. Every time PP comes to town with their 'sex ed' classes, the teen pregnancy rate skyrockets. It may be about education, but that has nothing to do with what PP's pushing.

reply from: chooselife

What has God personally told you about homosexuality? I'm not talking about priests or ministers - they are men. I'm not talking about authors - they are men. Can you separate that from your direct connection with God? I can tell you that coming out of the closet has brought me more peace and happiness - ease in my own skin - than I had ever experienced trying to be straight. That sense of peace and centeredness when I am quiet and still is God affirming to me that I am in the right place. I trust this direct connection more than anything a person tells me.

Anyway, that's my experience.

sal

Sal - Wow...where do I begin. If God had made us perfect then we would not have had free will. We couldn't really love God because we would all be robots following God's every command. It is only when you have a choice not to love God that you can truly love God. Hence free will. I can choose to lie and steal...God made me...so did God make me a liar and a thief? No. I chose to lie and chose to steal even though God has said not to. Yes, the Bible was written by men. But if God could create the heavens and the earth I am certain He was able to make sure that what He wanted in the Bible (His own instructions for life) got in there. Your comment about peace and centeredness was interesting. Even satan can appear as an angel of light. Satan can be very deceiving....he can have us believing that what we are doing is right. After all that lady that killed her 5 children swore that God told her to do it. So do you think the Bible is just all wrong and that we should just each be doing was makes us feel peaceful??

reply from: ChristianLott

You wanna tone it down a bit or should I report this to the moderator?

reply from: ChristianLott

Never mind, I just did.

reply from: AmericanPie

You should've seen what I originally responded with!! LOL!!

Report away by all means!

reply from: yoda

Many women DO stand up for themselves, but they don't stand up for their unborn babies.

Who will stand up for them?

reply from: salspua

Sometimes women do stand up for themselves, but not nearly often enough - we are still battered, murdered, raped, and treated as property on a daily basis.

So women who stand up for themselves and have an abortion? Like the ones who abort because their partner doesn't want a baby? She's not standing up for herself at all - she's just trying to survive abuse. Those who do abort for other reasons may be choosing their own health or keeping themselves off the street. They may abort 2 babies so the other quadruplets stand a good chance of living and being healthy. The mother may have a drug addiction. Not the baby's fault, but these reasons aren't trivial.

reply from: yoda

Do I understand you correctly to be saying that by giving into the abusive partner and killing your child you are "just trying to survive"? Wouldn't getting away from the abusive partner make more sense, and be way, way more moral than killing that innocent child?

Red herring argument. Health reasons (mother OR child) account for less than 5% of abortions.

Let's talk about the 95% who abort for financial and/or social reasons, okay? Which financial and/or social reasons do you consider MORE important than the life of the healthy, innocent child?

reply from: ChristianLott

And women don't abuse men?

They call it p--sy whip.

Peter Gabriel said it best - 'Games without frontiers, war without tears'. Men don't choose women, women choose men.

http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~aychiang/pg/pg3.html#7

reply from: AmericanPie

Sounds like you have some deep-seated issues with women, there, Lott.

Why is the reasoning behind all your past angry rhetoric now completely understandable to me? I can't imagine.

reply from: ChristianLott

You hate men.

Now I know why you hate Jesus.

reply from: salspua

Yes, it absolutely makes much more sense - especially to those of us on the outside. That she stays and that she aborts a baby that she wants for someone else are symptoms of how insidious the whole abuse dynamic is. Some finally do rise above it and refuse to put themselves in harm's way anymore. Many don't.

My argument isn't that abortions are cool or a great idea. They're horrible. My argument is that they should remain legal.

It is very easy for those of us who have not had an abortion or even been faced with the circumstances of those who have chosen abortion to comprehend why one would choose to kill her own baby. If one is struggling to rise above desperate poverty, getting pregnant only assures that one will remain in poverty, living in dangerous areas where that child cannot even go outside to play. If the mother works, then the child may have unreliable supervision, if any at all.

When my friend aborted her baby, she was 19, had a drug habit, and was having rage issues. Her body started to miscarry. The doctors told her the baby was likely unhealthy, likely to be retarded at best. She thought about adoption, but couldn't bear the idea of the child living in foster care and the ramifications of life in a seriously damaged body. She chose to abort the baby - a decision she didn't take lightly. She's 45 now and the decision still weighs heavily on her, though she does not regret it. Now maybe that baby would have been ok, and one may argue that any life is better than death, but those things are unknowns.

I have seen children who I think would have been better off not being born. I can't know that, and those kids can't tell me. I've seen children born healthy who live ugly desperate lives, and I don't know that they're happy to be alive. Please do not suggest that I support killing children I think suffer too much - I'm not saying that. I have to trust the mother to do the best she knows how. I have to look at women's choices from a standpoint that I have not necesarily walked in their shoes and know that there are reasons I don't understand. In those decisions, sometimes a fetus dies.

So the vague realm of quality of life which can be enormously affected by socioeconomics can be more important than the life of a fetus that would continue to develop into a healthy, sentient being if left alone. (No, I don't know where that line is.)

I'd like to see the input of social workers here. My hunch is that we on this board are largely white middle class people. It is easy for people who have never really done without to judge others whose choices don't seem to make sense. It is easy for one who has never lived in abuse to judge the choices of those who do. Rather than judging "She superficial, she would rather kill her baby than stop buying new shoes, she's killing her baby for a new boyfriend" - whatever - I suggest that we look at abortion as a symptom of societal ills and work to change the causes.

reply from: ChristianLott

That's exactly what you said.

reply from: salspua

Thank you for listening.

reply from: yoda

My overall impression of your post here is that you are trying hard not to look the issues squarely in the face, and hope for some "understanding" of that reluctance. Sorry, my lifetime of experience has taught me that to avoid the truth is to make things worse, not better.

Let us agree here that the future of an unborn child is always an unknown, okay? Now then, do we err on the side of life, and let the child live to make his/her own decisions, or do we err on the side of death for the unseen baby?

Here is where your reluctance to face the issues squarely manifests itself. How "vague" do you insist on being, when I have asked you specifically to tell us which socioeconomic conditions have more value than a human life? Why can you not give a straight answer to that question? To say that you "don't know where the line is" and with at the same time say that "line" sometimes justifies the taking of an innocent human life is to say that the value of that life means nothing to you. Is that what you mean?

Societial ills do not kill innocent babies, women and men do. No, it is not a symptom, it is the disease.

reply from: salspua

What I am reluctant to do is make a black & white description of something that is not black & white. I understand it is black & white for you. To me, it is not, therefore I cannot give you the answer that you seek. What is black & white is that abortion kills the baby. I agree. It is a tragedy.

I'd be all for asking the fetus if it were possible. When a person makes that decision later, it's called suicide. Also a tragedy. The point is, if aborting is considered, the baby cannot be asked. Parents make decisions for their children all the time, sometimes to the child's detriment. Even things that really can be put off for the child to decide, like with intersexed children being assigned a sex by adults. When the adults are wrong, the child suffers. Even circumcision - the only part of the body that is removed so it doesn't have to be washed (barring religious reasons). The operation is often done without anesthesia, and is done for social reasons. I understand that circumcision only sometimes goes wrong and abortion always kills the baby, but it is a decision that many people accept as ok for parents to decide for the child.

This may be the crux of our disagreement - a major one, at least. I believe people do not act in a vacuum. To end abortion (outside of those that are for medical reasons), we must end the conditions in which women make such a drastic decision. We must end desperate poverty. We must end oppression and abuse wherever we find it. Do you believe women who abort are uncaring and totally selfish, or do you think that something must be very compelling to cause them to choose to kill their babies? More oppression, like reducing women's reproductive rights, is a poor choice. It moves us back, rather than allowing for moving forward.

reply from: salspua

chooselife~
You asked me a question a few days ago. "So do you think the Bible is just all wrong...?? " I wasn't ignoring you...

No, I don't think the Bible is all wrong. There is a lot of wisdom in the Bible.

God also doesn't do a lot of things that one might think He would, like protect the innocent. It doesn't always happen. Natural disasters happen, people are raped and beaten and He doesn't stop it. Who's to say that He would ensure accurate translation of the Bible? Who's to say that men of power did not put their own spin on the texts?

The Bible supports things that I cannot, like slavery and offering my daughters sexually to guests. People are stoned to death in the Bible... no thanks.. I'm not gonna condone that. Maybe it was important to have as many babies as you could when the human population was small, but it doesn't make sense now with over 6 billion of us.

Ok, so I have a question. Is the fact that God forbids it the only reason why you don't steal? I don't steal because it's wrong - I wouldn't want someone to steal from me, so I don't steal. Stealing does not leave me feeling right - it disrupts that peace I feel when I'm centered. The ideas are not incongruous.

Who one loves is different from stealing or not. When one steals, it's out of anger, a feeling of powerlessness, mental illness, hunger or need. Human beings are loving. We just are. Did you choose your heterosexuality? Did you sit down one day and think... hmmmm. girls? boys? which one should I love.... hmm... I choose boys. Your heart blossomed that way. I tried for a long time to do the "right" thing - it didn't work. That tug you feel with men - I don't. I feel it with women. My choice is to love who I love, or withdraw myself from the world of love. Would a kind God expect that of me? I think not. The reasons why people steal pass. Loving doesn't pass.

If we follow our gut, our Wise Womon, our direct connect with God, we would be living according to the commandments. If everyone followed the path to inner peace, there would be no murder. There would be no theft. There would be no coveting. No excess, no glutony, vanity, etc. As I said before, these ideas are congruent with the spirituality of the Bible. I believe in faith. I believe in Divine Design. I believe in the power of prayer.

Clearly she was mentally ill. What a tragedy.

sal

reply from: yoda

I cannot require you to answer a straightforward question in a straightforward manner, but I will give it one more shot: Can you give me/us ANY example of an EXTREME socioeconomic condition in which the life of the unborn child has less value to YOU than the "easy answer" (by abortion) to that condition? Never mind those you consider "borderline", or "in the gray area", just provide the most extreme example you can think of in which a healthy mother is justified (IYO) in killing her healthy unborn child by socioeconomic conditions....... can you do that?

And you consider that a justification for killing the baby? Because it can't talk or understand language, that makes it okay to kill it? Hey, let it live a few years and it can make it's own decision about it's own life! What is the rush to kill?

I think you're getting the cart before the horse. Before we talk about ending abortion, we need to first agree whether abortion is immoral/wrong or not. So far, I have not seen any indication that you consider it so.

reply from: AmericanPie

LOL!!!!! I've been married to the same man for 24 years, Assclown. We're best friends.

Jesus? Jesus was a cool guy. Much cooler than those who purport to "follow" him.

I don't hate anyone. I do, however, feel pity for some people who can't find their ass with both hands and a flashlight. Not mentioning any names.

reply from: salspua

Killing is immoral
and
there are times when people transgress that moral standard.

People kill to eat or pay others to do it for us. Mostly, people do not need to eat meat. Killing is immoral, but people transgress that standard.

An enormous number of animals die in animal shelters across the country. People kill them, too. The dogs and cats are innocent - they did not ask to be born. They did not ask to be unwanted. Transgression.

One may kill a man in self defense - even unintentionally. Transgression.

We Americans* have killed a huge number of innocent people in Iraq. I find it shameful and tragic. Yet America honors those who pull the triggers and launch the bombs. Killing is immoral, yet is rewarded by our country.

*In another thread, you argued that paying taxes doesn not mean complicity with our government's actions. You said that speaking out against war is how to fight against it. I disagree. It's like telling your kids "Do not buy drugs. It is dangerous and just plain wrong. Oh, here's your $100 for drugs." See?

Abortion with the mother's consent is a transgression of killing being immoral. Abortion without the mother's consent is immoral.

I must frustrate you - not giving the yes or no answer you're asking for, but yes or no doesn't cover it for me.

Abortion wasn't my decision. Ideally, you should be asking someone who has had that experience. I'll give it a try nonetheless. A woman grows up in desperate poverty, moving every 3-8 months because mom can't make rent. Traumatized by her own experience of being afraid of living in her own neighborhood and her mother's string of abusive boyfriends, she swears that she will not impose this on her own child. She's in school, trying to get an education to lift herself out of the dispair she grew up in. She becomes pregnant unintentionally. At this point, having the baby means postponing her education and returning to the same horror she grew up in. I don't know why she doesn't choose adoption, but if she doesn't, I can understand why she would abort.

And I wouldn't call abortion "easy". No one I have spoken to about her abortion has ever ever said it was easy.

reply from: ChristianLott

AP:

Jesus:

reply from: yoda

I agree with the first part in some circumstances (not all), but I don't understand the relevance of the second part. Is an immoral act made less immoral because "people do it"?

Here you have lost me. If someone kills to defend their own life, what's immoral about that?

No, I did NOT say that is how to "fight against it". I said that's one of the things that determines your complicity. Besides, your kid doesn't pass laws that you are obligated to follow.

Hmmm....... abortion is immoral...... and yet you defend it...... so you defend immorality?

Hmmm...... now you have gone from "it is immoral" to "I can understand why she would abort". So you can understand why someone would do an immoral thing, and your understanding lends you to support a decision to do that immoral thing. So in essence, you are saying you support immorality. Okay.

At any rate, your example above says that you value a woman's chance to get "out of poverty" above the value of an innocent human life. Interesting. That means that you also don't value the lives of other people living in poverty. What should we do about these people living these worthless lives? Should they all be killed, since their lives are worthless? That would be a way for them to "get out of poverty", wouldn't it? And that would be worth more than their lives, wouldn't it?

reply from: salspua

No, you're altering what I said. I discussed transgression. Those are the exceptions that many accept. (For example, not everyone accepts the transgression of killing to eat meat.) You're reducing something to state that is simpler than it is.

I figured you'd take my attempt to describe why a woman in dire straights might choose abortion and twist it to the point that we should kill the poor to spare them. *Not* what I'm saying. So why don't you ask a woman has made that choice, rather than someone (me) who doesn't have that experience but is defending a woman's right to choose whether or not she continues a pregnancy. Will you then tell her that she thinks the lives of those in poverty are worthless? (That, of course, includes her own, and if she thinks her life is worthless, why is she trying to make a difference in it?)

Then does anyone who supports our troops also supporting immorality? Anyone who accepts any transgression of the immorality of killing supporting immorality? This includes self-defense, eating meat, anyone who works in an animal shelter, a veterenarian who puts a suffering animal to sleep - Do all of these people support immorality, or are these things transgressions?

My bad - you're right. The effect is the same. And one is obligated by law to pay taxes, and it is still complicity. That I fear the consequences of tax evasion is why I do it anyway. I don't yet know how to survive well on an income under the taxable level.

I may respond more later... gotta run off to work.

sal

reply from: ChristianLott

No. There is no transgression for these two cases.

There is a difference between killing someone and murder.

'Thou shall not kill' is better translated 'Do not murder'.

Murder is when you take an innocent life for whim or pleasure, for personal gain.

You kill someone who threatens your family. You kill someone in self defense. That is righteous and good. God did not put us on this earth to be sitting ducks for murderers and thugs.

There is no commandment that says 'Thou shall be food for wolves'. It's just not there, nor the inference.

Killing someone unintentionally is not murder. Accidents happen and God does not say 'Thou shall not make mistakes'.

Sin itself is a mistake but it is a willful act against God. Very different than an unintentional mistake.

reply from: yoda

Okay, let's take a break here and define terms. What do you mean by "transgression'? And can you drop that term and use "moral or immoral" instead?

I'm asking you because you are posting here. I can't post my conversations with people away from this forum. You stated (in so many words) that a woman's chance to get out of poverty was worth more than the life of her baby, right? Therefore it seems logical to me that if a baby's life is worth less than her mother's chance to get out of poverty, an innocent life is worth less than the chance to escape poverty.

That means that logically any way you can get out of poverty is worth more than an innocent life, even your own.

Now tell me where my logic fails, okay?

If THEY consider our troops to be doing immoral things, and THEY still support them, then YES they are supporting immorality. You essentially said that YOU support abortion even though YOU consider it to be immoral, so that IS supporting immorality, IMO.

I disagree. Unless you are allowed to pay for only the programs you support, you have no way of withholding support through tax payment. You clearly have an obligation to support public utilities and services, and if you are forced through legal obligation to pay for all government activities, that is not a voluntary act.

reply from: AmericanPie

I said:

Hookay. You're telling me that Jesus said that one must "hate" their father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, in order to be his disciple.

Do you realize that the bible is chock-full of contradictions? Yet it's supposedly the "word of God"? God must be a walking, talking contradiction.

Very peculiar.

Hey...if Jesus said it's okay to "hate your children", then why is a pregnant woman who aborts her fetus "evil"? Maybe she just...hates it and wants to follow Jesus.

Bible wordplay is such fun.

reply from: ChristianLott

Wordplay all you want, you only read half of what He said:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple."

What does that mean? Well it means nothing to you because you hate Jesus. To those who WANT to follow Jesus ("If anyone comes to me") it means that you cannot love your fellow man or even yourself WITHOUT putting Christ FIRST.

Now how did I get from hate to love so quickly? Why would you hate someone unless they were doing wrong? All mortals have sin. Jesus did not. Therefore you must hate all of those sinners including yourself and love Jesus before you can hope to change the hearts of the sinner - you and your fellow man - be it sibling, spouse, neighbor or parent.

Have you ever done something wrong and thought you were right for a time. When you found out you had been acting wrong for so long - didn't you hate yourself for it? Well Jesus knows and He forgives. All you need to do is put Him first and hate the sinner.

reply from: AmericanPie

I thought it was the *sin* you were supposed to "hate", and not the sinner? That's what the vangies/fundies are on about. "Hate the sin, not the person committing it," is their mantra. Else why would a serial murderer be instantly forgiven by merely uttering the words, "Forgive me Jesus, I accept you as my savior!"?? He's still a sinner, right? Can't make all those people he murdered come back to life, can we? So he's still a sinner. Yet he's "forgiven" merely by uttering nine little words. Astonishing!

More contradictions.

Your "hating Jesus" comment just made me laugh, nothing more.

I wonder how many *sinners* you know of, Lott? Can we shake the skeletons out of your closet, perhaps?

reply from: ChristianLott

No, that's the fag priests. The real 'fundies' will tell you some people are evil.

I know and I believed that not too long ago. I could probably find a few posts where I've said just that. I was wrong.

Well yes, so it would appear we agree.

It is true that Jesus forgives our sins - but only after we repent. To repent you have to atone or 'make up for' your sin by spreading The Word (the 'Truth' if I may be so bold).

It's so simple it's a truism.

Every one of those preborn babies has a pure, untainted soul. When you murder a baby you are murdering Christ all over again. 3,500 times a day in the US.

'Only say the word and I shall be healed'. That's when you're talking to Jesus. You ask him for forgiveness and you find out on Judgment Day if you've done enough in your life to attain Heaven.

If you don't believe in this I wonder if you can just see it as a metaphor. That's one way of understanding it.

I have sinned numerous times. People think I fight against abortion because I'm selfish. It's a very transparent argument. I fight against abortion because I believe we can do better for ourselves and our children. There is never an excuse to murder a baby.

Instated of murdering your baby, you should raise them and teach them what is right and wrong and let them help you make the world a better place.

I've told many unrepentant people they are going to Hell. I believe I was going to Hell for many years but I came through.

See, it's not enough to just say 'I'm sorry for murdering my baby'. That's not good enough. That's just saying you made a mistake once. That's not repenting, that's just saying you're sorry. Repentance is when you say 'I know murdering babies is wrong and I will fight to defend their lives and save these children the best I know how for the rest of my life'. See? That serious commitment, not just 'opps, I did it again'.

reply from: salspua

I would say transgression is an exception, crossing the line of a standard. No, I can't drop the word transgression and use a simple "moral or immoral" and be true to myself.

As far as morality, I do not differentiate killing and murder. Maybe what you call killing as opposed to murder I call a transgression. It is simpler than saying some killing is ok, and some killing isn't. So is killing moral or immoral? See? Not that simple.

That makes sense. My point in asking you that is my answers are guesses, and not as real as from one who has lived that experience. She would have much more insight than I.

My point is desperate poverty is horrific enough that a woman may choose to nip her baby's life in the bud to spare him or her the suffering she endured. I am guessing. Something is compelling enough for a woman to make that choice. I cannot see the wind, but I see its effects. To deny wind is missing a huge part of what's going on.

Maybe for some it is. I was lucky enough to grow up middle class. I never missed a meal. We never had our utilities cut off. Neither of my parents was an addict or drug user. I had two parents. There was no sexual abuse.

I know nothing of your background. Is it similar to mine? Are you passing judgement on something you've never experienced? (These questions are rhetorical - I don't expect you to share personal information unless you are moved to.)

Ok, here you are putting morality in the eye of the beholder. Supporting immorality is when you believe an action is immoral and you support it, so if you think it isn't immoral, it isn't? I think bombing people is immoral. Someone else thinks it is moral. So is bombing people moral or immoral? How does your answer apply to abortion?

Hmmmm.... I disagree. I volunteer to pay may taxes in that I allow it to happen. There are some pretty steep consequences if I don't, but it is still a choice. My life is easier when I fund war. A friend of mine had a wonderful idea. She suggested that we choose where our taxes go - like have boxes to check off on our tax forms. I think the government would have a better idea of what the people value if we did this - much more democratic. Of course, it will be a cold day in Hell before *that* happens. ~sigh~

CL-

If I do not love myself, warts and all, I cannot love anyone else. And you have to give what you want to receive. If I give hate, I will receive it. If I give love, I will receive love.

Some of my good friends are fags. Among the things I like about them is that they won't come on to me, and when they call each other "girl", it's a term of endearment.

sal

reply from: AmericanPie

"Fag priests"??? Err, no. A Protestant evangelical acquaintance of mine espouses "hating the sin, not the sinner". You have your denominations (as well as your mind) mixed up.

The day we agree is the day I voluntarily check myself into a mental institution for an in-depth analysis.

My vangie acquaintance again says that Christ died ONCE and only ONCE for the sins of man. He cannot "die" any more. And you're saying that he is dying 3,500 times a day, every day, 365 days a year. Hmmmm.

I haven't murdered any babies. Nor have I birthed any. No bun has ever invaded my oven. Which makes me doomed to hell in your eyes, and which I STILL am chuckling over, incidentally! I told a coworker about this the other day, and he laughed so hard he ended up choking in the sink.

Hey...what if a female must have a hysterectomy for medical reasons at the age of, say, 25? She can no longer give birth. Tsk, guess she's doomed to hell for interfering in "God's great biological plan for her".

Oh, here's something I wanted to ask your supreme brilliance. Men and vasectomies. Is it a no-no or a yay-yay in your...errrr...view? Or is it just women that God has this "great biological plan" for and men can just bounce through life as a walking penis with no care or concern about any "consequences"?

Ya think so, eh? And what makes you so sure? Because you said those nine little meaningless words and now you go scream in women's faces at clinics? This makes you "saved"? Have you adopted any of these unwanted babies? Have you gone to an IVF clinic and adopted any "embryos" today? Have you offered to give financial assistance to a 15-year-old girl, who was mauled by her drunken father and now is ready to give birth to her daughter-sister, so that she might be able to escape her hell on earth? It seems that all you've done is hassled pregnant women, as far as I can deduce, with no positive outcome.

Hell's gonna be a crowded place. I'll bring a deck of cards, a 6-pack, and hope someone else'll bring the tequila chaser and pretzels.

May I say that it sounds like you have had first-hand experience in this, Lott. Guilt is an excellent motivator, they say.

reply from: ChristianLott

"Fag priests"??? Err, no. A Protestant evangelical acquaintance of mine espouses "hating the sin, not the sinner". You have your denominations (as well as your mind) mixed up.

Do you know any fag priests? You have one friend. He's probably a fag anyway.

The day we agree is the day I voluntarily check myself into a mental institution for an in-depth analysis.

So we agree on this issue?

My vangie acquaintance again says that Christ died ONCE and only ONCE for the sins of man. He cannot "die" any more. And you're saying that he is dying 3,500 times a day, every day, 365 days a year. Hmmmm.

See? With the way the world is now, who you gonna believe - better or worse?

I haven't murdered any babies. Nor have I birthed any. No bun has ever invaded my oven. Which makes me doomed to hell in your eyes, and which I STILL am chuckling over, incidentally! I told a coworker about this the other day, and he laughed so hard he ended up choking in the sink.

He'll be choking in Hell. If you use birth control you are killing babies. It's a fact.

Hey...what if a female must have a hysterectomy for medical reasons at the age of, say, 25? She can no longer give birth. Tsk, guess she's doomed to hell for interfering in "God's great biological plan for her".

That's YOUR argument, not based on anything I or any RTLer has ever said. Are you proud of your lies about us?

Oh, here's something I wanted to ask your supreme brilliance. Men and vasectomies. Is it a no-no or a yay-yay in your...errrr...view? Or is it just women that God has this "great biological plan" for and men can just bounce through life as a walking penis with no care or concern about any "consequences"?

It's a sin for a man or woman to sterilize themselves though an operation or using baby murdering devices such as birth control or abortions. Willingly and knowingly.

Ya think so, eh? And what makes you so sure? Because you said those nine little meaningless words and now you go scream in women's faces at clinics?

I have never done this. Do you feel you're at a 'clinic' on this forum?

This makes you "saved"? Have you adopted any of these unwanted babies?

I sponsor a child in India

Have you gone to an IVF clinic and adopted any "embryos" today?

And give them MORE money to slaughter MORE babies?

Have you offered to give financial assistance to a 15-year-old girl, who was mauled by her drunken father and now is ready to give birth to her daughter-sister, so that she might be able to escape her hell on earth?

Anyone can ask me and I'm always here to help.

It seems that all you've done is hassled pregnant women, as far as I can deduce, with no positive outcome.

Where have you seen me 'hassel' pregnant women? You condone the murder of their children. If that's not hasseling pregnant women, I don't know what is.

Hell's gonna be a crowded place. I'll bring a deck of cards, a 6-pack, and hope someone else'll bring the tequila chaser and pretzels.

Set up a supply chain. You'll be there a LONG TIME.

May I say that it sounds like you have had first-hand experience in this, Lott. Guilt is an excellent motivator, they say.

Guilt AND hate properly directed can lead to miracles. Improperly directed, they can lead to ruin. So which is it going to be for you?

reply from: ChristianLott

CL-

quote:

Therefore you must hate all of those sinners including yourself and love Jesus before you can hope to change the hearts of the sinner - you and your fellow man

If I do not love myself, warts and all, I cannot love anyone else. And you have to give what you want to receive. If I give hate, I will receive it. If I give love, I will receive love.

The one does not negate the other. Just because I hate does not mean I'm incapable of love. My love and hate balance each other.

quote:

No, that's the fag priests.

Some of my good friends are fags.

They can never be a friend because sinners can never have your best interest at heart.

Among the things I like about them is that they won't come on to me, and when they call each other "girl", it's a term of endearment.

Oh, I'm about to vomit.

sal

reply from: yoda

Rather than clearing up that issue, you have made it muddier for me. WHAT line? WHAT standard? For WHAT purpose? Is there a need for such ambiguity?

Then essentially you are saying you have no moral standards. That's sad. Morality is the most important thing in life to me, and I see every action in terms of the morality of the attitude that caused that action. If you cannot differentiate between the intentional killing of an innocent human being and the accidental (or self-defense) killing of a human being, then you are simply not trying to look at morality at all.

Killing can be either, and that's quite simple. It depends entirely on the intent, the attitude behind that killing. What's complicated about that? Why is morality such a difficult subject?

No, your answers are your moral attitude, your values. You know in your heart what is important to you right now, and that's all I'm asking about. You don't have to guess about that, you know the answer.

And you think that's a moral thing to do? Why not kill the child after it's born, for the same reason? What's the difference in killing born children in poverty, and unborn ones?

I am expressing my value system. I have that right under the constitution, and I consider it my moral duty to express the fact that I value innocent human life above financial and social considerations. I do not consider that "passing judgement", and I am not bothered if you do.

If you sincerely believe it isn't immoral, then it is your duty to be guided by what you believe. If you are thinking that way simply for selfish reasons, then you are lying to yourself, and that is immoral. If you are simply wrong about it, then the truth will eventually get through to you. No one can know for sure that their attitudes are moral or immoral in a universal/absolute way, so each must be guided by their own perception of morality, and hope that they are right.

reply from: AmericanPie

Neither. I'm neither guilty of "murdering babies" nor do I hate anyone, unlike you. Between your embrace of guilt and hate, it sounds like you'd be a good candidate for the Aryan Nation. Unless you're already a member, that is.

You are a very mentally unbalanced person, Lott. Your words prove it. I pity you and all who cross your path. Truly, I do.

reply from: yoda

I'm curious about that statement. Are you basing that on the "murdering" part or the "babies" part? (We all know that murder is the illegal killing of a human being, so I understand that.)

Here's where your post goes from advocating for your position to slinging mud. IMO, no one really cares one way or the other how your online psychiatric diagnosis of CL goes, we can form our own opinions on that.

reply from: Tam

Ok. I'm jumping into this topic, but I'm still not even through page 2 and I have to respond to some of these things. I may be pre-repeating (hehe) someone else's answers to some extent, but this is my own take on things.

By the way, I like salspua. Just thought I'd mention.

What I am reluctant to do is make a black & white description of something that is not black & white. I understand it is black & white for you. To me, it is not, therefore I cannot give you the answer that you seek. What is black & white is that abortion kills the baby. I agree. It is a tragedy.

Ok, I just want to call attention to this. "What is black & white is that abortion kills the baby. I agree. It is a tragedy."

That is huge. I want everybody to notice that salspua agrees that abortion absolutely kills a baby and is a tragedy. That is a position most pro-choice people won't admit because they're too focused on protecting legal abortion. She admits it but still favors legal abortion. So we don't have to debate about whether abortion kills a baby.

I think part of the problem is that it is really difficult for some of us, including me, to see how anyone could support abortion on demand while acknowledging that abortion is killing a baby.

I'd be all for asking the fetus if it were possible. When a person makes that decision later, it's called suicide. Also a tragedy. The point is, if aborting is considered, the baby cannot be asked. Parents make decisions for their children all the time, sometimes to the child's detriment. Even things that really can be put off for the child to decide, like with intersexed children being assigned a sex by adults. When the adults are wrong, the child suffers. Even circumcision - the only part of the body that is removed so it doesn't have to be washed (barring religious reasons). The operation is often done without anesthesia, and is done for social reasons. I understand that circumcision only sometimes goes wrong and abortion always kills the baby, but it is a decision that many people accept as ok for parents to decide for the child.

Parents make decisions for their children all the time, sometimes to the child's detriment. Some of the decisions parents make are considered abusive, and the state steps in to protect the interests of the child. For example, if a parent tried to kill his/her child, the child (and probably all his/her children) would be removed from his/her care. Abortion always kills the baby, so why is it a decision anyone accepts as ok for parents to make for a child?

This may be the crux of our disagreement - a major one, at least. I believe people do not act in a vacuum. To end abortion (outside of those that are for medical reasons), we must end the conditions in which women make such a drastic decision. We must end desperate poverty. We must end oppression and abuse wherever we find it. Do you believe women who abort are uncaring and totally selfish, or do you think that something must be very compelling to cause them to choose to kill their babies? More oppression, like reducing women's reproductive rights, is a poor choice. It moves us back, rather than allowing for moving forward.

We must do our best. We must try to end desperate poverty, oppression, and abuse wherever we find it. But--first of all, abortion is violence against a child; it is not a solution to anything, not even poverty, not even rape, not even illness. Violence towards a child is not a solution to anything. Lethal, fatal violence directed against a child so young s/he isn't even born yet--this is not a symptom, nor is it the entire disease--it is a tragedy and we must do everything we can to end this tragedy wherever we find it. We must try to end desperate poverty, oppression, abuse, and violence of all sorts, wherever we find it. Particularly violence against defenseless children. What is wrong with this way of thinking?

reply from: AmericanPie

To reiterate:

I've never been pregnant.
Thus, I've never had a bambino growing in my uterus to "murder". One must have one of these in their uterus and seek to remove it, as I understand it, in order to be guilty of this "murder" you're talking about. I never did. Thus, I am not guilty, your honor. If there is something you still don't understand, let me know and I'll try to assist you.

If you want to condemn me because I don't make a career out of harassing and belittling women as they enter clinics, go right ahead. If unbalanced, pitable persons claim I'm going to Hell for (fill in stupid, irrational reason here), they can also continue doing so if it makes them feel superior. Threats of hellfire damnation do not turn my knobs, never did. As it happens, I don't believe in the traditional Hell of the holy rollers, complete with devil and pitchfork. I believe Hell can be right here on good old terra firma, while we're all still breathin'.

So now...what else can I help you understand?

reply from: Tam

Ok, so I have a question. Is the fact that God forbids it the only reason why you don't steal? I don't steal because it's wrong - I wouldn't want someone to steal from me, so I don't steal. Stealing does not leave me feeling right - it disrupts that peace I feel when I'm centered. The ideas are not incongruous.

Ok, you come right out and say stealing is wrong. Then you say you wouldn't want someone to steal from you, so you don't steal. Then you say stealing throws you from your center. These are three interesting ideas that I'd like to explore, especially the relationship among/between them. My main question is: when you say stealing is "wrong"--are you basing that "wrong" determination on the subsequent points (you wouldn't want it done to you, it unbalances you)? If so, is it based on either of those two points more than the other, or are both required for something to be wrong? What I am trying to get at (because, of course, stealing is just being used as an analogy) is what criteria you use to determine whether something is right or wrong. I noticed a good deal of talk about sin/transgression/immorality and I find it interesting that now we've got the simple word WRONG. I agree--stealing is wrong. I also think ripping a baby to shreds is wrong--and I'm trying to determine whether there are circumstances under which you agree with that.

If we follow our gut, our Wise Womon, our direct connect with God, we would be living according to the commandments. If everyone followed the path to inner peace, there would be no murder. There would be no theft. There would be no coveting. No excess, no glutony, vanity, etc. As I said before, these ideas are congruent with the spirituality of the Bible. I believe in faith. I believe in Divine Design. I believe in the power of prayer.

I believe the time when everyone is connected to the divine and these things all fall away, including abortion, is near at hand. But it's always darkest, as they say, just before the dawn. I think 100 years from now there will be no such thing as abortion. I've said before that I hope the word falls into such disuse that only historians know the term at all. I hope and believe the same will be true of terms such as murder, hate, rape, and meat. And anyone laughing at the notion that eating meat will fall away--how else could the lion lie down with the lamb? Hmm? Evolution (and by my use of this term, please do not assume I believe humans "evolved from apes"--what a notion, they may just as well have been literally formed from dust like a play-doh sculpture made by a giant hand reaching down from the sky).

reply from: yoda

Nor have I. So that's the basis of your statement "I'm not [sic] guilty of murdering babies"?

How do you fell about being "complicit" in the acts of another because you have in some way encouraged or enabled that act?

reply from: Tam

Actually, I have to say no. I was embarrassed, chagrined, appalled, deeply saddened, frustrated, and I'd even go so far as to say I was angry with myself for having failed to think the issue through much sooner--but I think I can say with a good degree of certainty that I didn't experience self-hatred as a result of realizing that abortion is not a solution, it is a problem. Sure, it's not the same as some innocent error, but it's not the same as a deliberate one either. I made a mistake, or a series of mistakes, for years. (Oh yeah, and to answer your question that I meant to get back to, CL, I was a pro-choice activist from 1989 or maybe even 1988 until about 1996 or 1997, I guess--less than 10 years, in any case; I have been a pro-life activist for about one year; in between, I was thinking about it. I am pretty sure that as early as 2000 I was solidly pro-life but I didn't get active until 2004.) Also--I think if I'd had an abortion myself (which I always maintained I'd never do, even when I supported that "choice" for others), I might have hated myself for that, though. But I can't say for sure because what do I know, having never had one. Maybe I'd hate myself now, maybe not. Either way it wouldn't bring the baby back. I'm glad I never did anything like that. I did go with a friend who had an abortion--but I think in a way it was a good thing I did that, because the memory of the protestors outside the clinic stays with me to this day. There was a woman outside the clinic crying out to all the women going in, saying, "Please, please do not kill your baby. I will personally raise that baby and take care of that baby. Please, please, do not kill your baby. Please, don't kill your baby." Through all those years in between then and now--even when I thought of that woman as an impediment to my freedom as a woman--I could NEVER get that out of my head. Those words, her voice, even what she looked like--right now, remembering it, it makes me want to weep, thinking of how callously I disregarded her then and supported my friend in killing her baby. For the record, I personally believe (and it wouldn't be fair to reveal personal details about this couple) that the abortion was the turning point for them--that if they'd kept the child alive, even if they'd given him/her away, they'd have been ok; as it is, they lost each other and much else that was dear to them, including in both cases my close friendship (not because of the abortion, for other reasons), and neither of them has ever been truly okay since. That's all my personal opinion of people you don't even know, so it doesn't much matter, I guess.

reply from: yoda

Oh yeah! That's a major, major biggie for me. A statement in that vein might go like this: "Yes, I know that abortions kills an innocent baby, but I still think we must allow women to do that without any penalty if they really want to".

Oh yeah, that makes my skin crawl...... and then to hear them say "But I'm not in any way responsible for it when they do that, I just keep the door open for them to come in and kill it in comfort, convenience, and privacy."

Yeah, right...... that's like a pimp saying he isn't resposible for the transmission of STD's by his prostitutes.

reply from: Tam

I would say transgression is an exception, crossing the line of a standard. No, I can't drop the word transgression and use a simple "moral or immoral" and be true to myself.

As far as morality, I do not differentiate killing and murder. Maybe what you call killing as opposed to murder I call a transgression. It is simpler than saying some killing is ok, and some killing isn't. So is killing moral or immoral? See? Not that simple.

It is to me. Killing is immoral. See? Simple.

I'll answer--bombing people is immoral. So is abortion and all other killing.

Hmmmm.... I disagree. I volunteer to pay may taxes in that I allow it to happen. There are some pretty steep consequences if I don't, but it is still a choice. My life is easier when I fund war. A friend of mine had a wonderful idea. She suggested that we choose where our taxes go - like have boxes to check off on our tax forms. I think the government would have a better idea of what the people value if we did this - much more democratic. Of course, it will be a cold day in Hell before *that* happens.

There was a guy I knew who would only pay a percentage of his taxes. Whatever percentage of the budget went to defense, he'd withhold that percentage of his taxes (and I believe donated the money to some peace organization or something). I think he got into a bunch of trouble but he made his point. Look at Henry David Thoreau--he went to jail for refusing to pay what he saw as an unjust tax.

I tried to find a good quote about this but the whole essay is just so relevant that I include a link to it here: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/civ.dis.html

YES

Some of my good friends are fags. Among the things I like about them is that they won't come on to me, and when they call each other "girl", it's a term of endearment.

Ok, whether we're using it as a slur or as a term of endearment, I wish we would stop using the word "fags" on this forum, because it is (although it has been reclaimed to some extent) a slur and I think it really brings the level of the forum down too much.

reply from: yoda

Sincerely held mistaken beliefs are no basis for self-hatred. All the other adjectives, maybe, but not self-hatred.

reply from: AmericanPie

Well...I'm not. Exactly what would you have me say? I've never been pregnant. Never had an abortion. Is there something you do not understand?

I don't recall ever having talked a pregnant woman into having an abortion. I don't make it a point to stand outside obstetricians' offices and discuss the benefits of abortion with pregnant women who are entering or leaving. So much for "encouraged". I also did not sit on the Supreme Court in 1973 and had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. So much for "enabling". Unless you have some other, far-fetched notion of "enabling"? Which will probably elicit a "no" from me as well.

Oh I see, now. Like I said before...because I am not on some half-assed "crusade" like most of you, standing sentry outside clinics, harassing women and waving abortion photos in their faces, I am "aiding and abetting" the cause of abortion. Right? Talk about straw men.

So be it, then. My conscience feels just fine, thanks.

reply from: yoda

Well, since you made up those examples yourself, then yes they are strawmen by definition.

On the other hand, if you post on forums such as this, and express your opinion as to why abortions are justified, or moral, or rationalize their acceptability in some way, then yes you have encouraged abortions.

But of course that won't bother you, because you have no moral problem with abortion, right?

reply from: AmericanPie

Just call it "reading your mind".

Only in your and like-minded individuals' opinion.

I neither encourage nor discourage. If the bun ain't growing in my oven, it ain't my business, i.e., if it isn't my body, what right do I have to interfere? None. Period. It's a legal medical procedure, and it will remain so until the judiciary is stocked with Dominionist judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. It will happen someday, the way this country is headed. But that day isn't today.

Right again. Had I gotten pregnant, I would not have sought an abortion. Personal reasons, having nothing to do at all with the fear of hellfire and Godly morals, but rather having to do with high regard for my husband, who also is my best friend. However, I have no right to interfere in the pregnancies of other women. I have no idea what their personal circumstances are, nor do I care to know. I'm a Libertarian. New-found, but one just the same. We don't concern ourselves with peoples' private issues. What's done behind closed doors is none of our business, as long as it respects the law. Abortion...is legal at this particular time. Thus we have no right to interfere. We're more concerned with freedom and the right to pursue happiness as the individual sees fit for all taxpaying Americans. If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, then that is when I will look upon abortion as an illegal act. Until then, people are free to follow their own course.

reply from: Tam

Ooh! A libertarian! Ok, let's talk about this: http://www.l4l.org/

reply from: AmericanPie

Hehe, nah, Tam.

I'm the dyed-in-the-wool variety.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#womerigh

Which reads, in part:

That about says it in a nutshell.

reply from: yoda

I really prefer to call it "just making up stuff and then claiming you are thinking that".... but then that's just me. I suppose you claim to be a psychic or something?

Here I suppose you will stick doggedly to the legal rights concept, and refuse to discuss the moral rights concept.... am I reading your mind right? Now, if I'm wrong (and that does happen occasionally), then you might consider this question: what moral right do you have to report your neighbor for child abuse if you see it? Better yet, what moral responsibility?

Ah, a "legalist"....... :-) Well then, would you have the same attitude if our laws were changed to allow some things that are now illegal? Let's say child abuse, slavery, or infanticide?

I mean really, as long as it's legal it's fine with you, right?

reply from: yoda

How about "on the basis of age, size, developmental status, or location"?

Do you favor denying individual rights based on those factors?

reply from: AmericanPie

Each item is addressed individually on the LP homepage. So each has its own answer. Which is that all taxpaying Americans have the right to live their lives and to pursue happiness as they see fit, and not according to any grand governmental schemes, and as long as it does not impinge on the rights of other taxpaying Americans.

Libertarians are not for denying rights to any American citizens for any reason. On the contrary, they hold the civil liberties of all taxpaying Americans to be paramount above all issues, unlike both Dems and Repubs. Which is why I abandoned the Dems and Repubs. Neither represent me and what's important to me. I am for civil liberties for all Americans. That is what I hold dear. And that includes the government butting OUT of peoples' personal lives, like the abortion issue. They should not fund it...nor make laws to regulate it. Just butt the hell out of it.

That's my view.

reply from: AmericanPie

Right yet again. You win the prize, thank you for playing.

reply from: Tam

That about says it in a nutshell.

All I suggested was that we talk about some of the principles held by Libertarians for Life. Does your "nah" and subsequent change of subject mean that you won't entertain any such discussion? I hope not. Well, I think I'm going to start one anyway, and you can participate if you want. But I'm starting another thread about it, soon.

reply from: Tam

Right yet again. You win the prize, thank you for playing.

Ok, sorry to seem a bit slow, but I find it hard to believe you are really admitting this flippantly that you would happily support slavery if it were legal. That, mind you, is what you're replying to. What yoda said was

And you toss off the comment above. I mean, are you really saying, as a Libertarian mind you, that whatever oppressive law the government passes is fine with you? I seriously doubt it. If that's what you mean, please tell me that yes, that's what you meant, and I'll stand corrected. It just sounded so un-libertarian to say you would support slavery, infanticide, whatever was legal. So tell me which is the truth:

A) You actually would support anything legal--as long as it's legal, it's fine with you.
B) You would not support anything legal, but you misunderstood the question somehow and responded too quickly, a mistake you will fix when responding to this post.
C) You would not support anything legal, but you deliberately misinterpreted the question so you could supply the answer you wanted to give, even though it was not actually the answer to the question you knew full well you were being asked.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but we've had a LOT of Option C lately, and I want to ascertain before I waste any time whether you are an A-type, a B-type, or a C-type of poster. Your response to this will say it all.

reply from: AmericanPie

Oh good lord.

Why is it that whenever you guys argue the "legality" question, you bring up slavery?

Look. Slavery was legal at one time. As such, had I been living during that time, I would've looked upon it as law. But I am not living during that time. Slavery was outlawed in the 1860s. It is now 2005. So why discuss it any longer? Comparing slavery to abortion is ridiculous, sorry.

That is not what I'm saying at all, and if you really knew what Libertarianism was all about, you'd know that they support no law that is "oppressive". On the contrary, and if you had read the official site, you'd know that Libertarians support no government intrusion into the private affairs of Americans. Period.

The official Libertarian position on abortion has been stated. And that is, that no government entity has the right to intrude into the private lives of Americans. INCLUDING reproductive issues.

Let's turn this around for a second. If Roe v. Wade were overturned and abortion were made illegal, you'd be on this selfsame forum, saying triumphantly "It's the law!" Don't say you wouldn't be, because frankly, I wouldn't believe you. Presently, because abortion is still legal, you indicate that it's "wrong" to support something that's legal which you consider "immoral". Isn't that a double-edged sword? It is to me.

You demonstrate that you have no idea what Libertarianism is all about. Let me refresh your memory:

There. I think that should spell it out for you. Oh, and A is the answer to your question. If Libs were in power, there would BE no oppressive laws in this country, guaranteed. I assume it doesn't bother you that a whole class of taxpaying Americans...homosexuals...are in danger of not only being officially discriminated against, but being criminalized by the Christian-Right-pandering Republican party now in charge? But that doesn't matter to you, as long as you get your abortion agenda fulfilled.

http://www.lp.org/index.shtml

reply from: yoda

So you base the moral right to life on the payment of taxes?

reply from: yoda

Wow! They would've loved you in the old south before the civil war, or in Germany before WW2..... you would've been a fine slave holder or stormtrooper......

reply from: yoda

So you were just being "flippant" with me? Or do you just not take this forum seriously?

Now then, if I have your attention, why is abortion not "oppressive"? What is your rationalization to dismiss the unborn human being as not being opressed by being killed?

reply from: AmericanPie

How many times do I have to spell it out for you people? Why do you keep putting up your straw men in the form of slavery and Nazi Germany, etc., etc.?

I'll say it for you one last time:

Now. Take your straw men and burn them. Or stuff them somewhere. I didn't write the above credo, but I stand by it. I don't believe government should interfere in the reproductive processes or any other part of individual Americans' private lives. You do.

A Libertarian who claims to be so, yet wishes the government to interfere in the reproductive processes of individual Americans may be called pro-life, anti-choice, call them what you wish, but do NOT call them a Libertarian for they ARE NOT.

What do you think it is?

reply from: yoda

I'm afraid I can't even guess..... but I'm sure you'll have a flippant answer of some kind!

Please, entertain us with your rationalization that allows you to dismiss unborn human beings as not "the victims of oppression when they are killed".

reply from: AmericanPie

You sound like my mother, LOL. "Don't be flippant, now!"

Because to a Lib, the unborn child is the property of the woman carrying it in her uterus, thus it is not yet a "person" with its own individual rights. Which is why they advocate no government interference in the personal choices the pregnant woman may make concerning her unborn. Thus, a fetus is not entitled to the same rights of individual liberty as a person who has been "born".

Hey, you wanted to know.

reply from: Tam

That is not what I'm saying at all, and if you really knew what Libertarianism was all about, you'd know that they support no law that is "oppressive". On the contrary, and if you had read the official site, you'd know that Libertarians support no government intrusion into the private affairs of Americans. Period.

The official Libertarian position on abortion has been stated. And that is, that no government entity has the right to intrude into the private lives of Americans. INCLUDING reproductive issues.

Let's turn this around for a second. If Roe v. Wade were overturned and abortion were made illegal, you'd be on this selfsame forum, saying triumphantly "It's the law!" Don't say you wouldn't be, because frankly, I wouldn't believe you. Presently, because abortion is still legal, you indicate that it's "wrong" to support something that's legal which you consider "immoral". Isn't that a double-edged sword? It is to me.

You demonstrate that you have no idea what Libertarianism is all about. Let me refresh your memory:

There. I think that should spell it out for you. Oh, and A is the answer to your question. If Libs were in power, there would BE no oppressive laws in this country, guaranteed. I assume it doesn't bother you that a whole class of taxpaying Americans...homosexuals...are in danger of not only being officially discriminated against, but being criminalized by the Christian-Right-pandering Republican party now in charge? But that doesn't matter to you, as long as you get your abortion agenda fulfilled.

http://www.lp.org/index.shtml

Are you deliberately missing the point or is it accidental? No one is asking you this question:

"In an ideal world, where all laws adhered perfectly to your personal idea of truth, justice, and the American way, would you support those magnificent laws?"

The question yoda asked was:

And you said:

Now, I'd like to know what just happened. Did you somehow think that when yoda asked about child abuse, slavery, and infanticide, he was suggestiing that in an ideal Libertarian paradise, these behaviors would be legal?

No one is asking for a lecture on Libertarianism. The LP is the only party I've ever belonged to (I don't anymore), so when you say:

It makes me really wonder what you're up to. First of all, if that's not what you're saying at all, why did you pick answer A??? Because answer A was "yes, that's what I'm saying." Second, did you somehow miss what I said?

I mean, from that sentence, wasn't it obvious that I get what you believe and I understand that you therefore would not support any oppressive law? Which is why it made no SENSE when you responded to yoda's question:

with:

What are you doing? I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt.

reply from: AmericanPie

Christ almighty.

I didn't dodge the question, Tam. You just can't frigging read.

YOU'RE a Libertarian? Explain to me, please, how you can be a Libertarian and still support government intrusion into the private lives of Americans? It is impossible. Thus, you are telling a "fib". Thus, you are a LIAR.

Since you apparently can't understand English beyond 9th grade level, I will say this slowly:

IF IT IS LEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY, THEN IT IS THE LAW AND I SUPPORT IT.

Please tell me, Tam. When do you think Slavery will be re-instituted in this country? Anytime soon, you think? So why do you people never cease to ask this question of pro-choice people? It's a dead question. It makes ZERO sense. How about child abuse? When do you think child abuse will be legal and become the newest vogue of this land? Next year, you think? Wow, the pedophiles can't wait for this to happen. Do you really believe the laws of this land would change to legalize slavery, child abuse, and murdering your 1-year-old? Can you be freaking REAL here, Tam, or do you have some kind of love affair going with straw men, since that's ALL you put up??? Infanticide? Well you think abortion is infanticide, what's the point of even mentioning that?? Fascism, well we have that now with that big-eared bag of crap in the WH that you people lurrrrrve because he wants to control women's bodies...which is what Libs fight against.

Libertarians are active to PREVENT oppressive laws from ever being brought to fruition in this country. If you really were a Lib, you'd know this and realize that your questions are asinine. Any oppressive laws rearing their head in this country will NOT come from a Libertarian, not ever.

There now. Do you understand, finally? Or would you like me to translate it into pig latin for you??? One thing I've noticed about most of your ilk. Rationality takes a back seat to fanaticism every time.

reply from: yoda

Oh no, I never said that.... your flippancy shows us where you're coming from, and that's good.

Oh wow..... the old "human property" attitude. Surely you know that human beings aren't supposed to be considered property, don't you? If you "own" another human being, that makes the other human being a "slave", doesn't it?

So you create this artifical concept of human ownership of another human, and then claim that this concept makes it morally okay to kill unborn human beings? Wow...... what a stretch!

Come on now, you did better when you were being flippant.......

reply from: yoda

Hmmm...... and then you said:

Hmmm...... so you'll be "active to prevent oppressive laws", but if they are passed then you WILL SUPPORT THEM...... is that about right?

So... how do you morally justify your support of oppressive laws?

reply from: AmericanPie

Throwing up straw men seems to be a fond pastime of yours as well as Tam's, Yod.

Good job!

reply from: Tam

I guess it is YOU who can't "frigging" read, pie. Did you miss this, too, in addition to all the rest?

If you are actually curious, which I doubt, but in case anyone else is--I'm not a Libertarian anymore because they don't go far enough. I would prefer anarchy. But until that's feasible (which, I know, I know, it's not, YET), if we're to have any laws at all, I think the first and most important law should be to prevent this disgusting and immoral practice (abortion). But, I digress. Back to the odious task of responding to this post...

Actually, it might not be that I lied and called myself a Libertarian. It might be that I said right off the bat that I'm not a member of the LP anymore. So maybe it's not that I'm a liar. Maybe it's that you're a fool. Just a thought...

Plus, for those who are interested (I assume that's not pie), when I *was* a Libertarian, I discovered http://www.l4l.org/--which pie doesn't care to explore, because it's too threatening (or whatever).

Funny that you still seem to want to avoid the actual question. Using capital letters and spaces in between your words doesn't really make your lack-of-a-point any clearer, frankly. Are you saying that you support all the laws currently in place in the country now? Or only those that the LP endorses? Are you saying that you'd support any law enacted by our current administration? Or are you just continuing to dodge the same question, hmm? Acting condescending doesn't answer the question, either. Keep trying, if you like, but I doubt you ever intended to answer.

Please tell me, Tam. When do you think Slavery will be re-instituted in this country? Anytime soon, you think?

Do you have any concept of the idea of a hypothetical question? (Never mind--THAT is called a "rhetorical" question--it doesn't need an answer--unlike the questions you have been dodging).

In a sense, slavery is already in place. The unborn child is the property of his or her mother until birth, which is a form of slavery, plain and simple. But I don't expect you to understand (or admit you understand) that. I see your true colors in your (lack of) response to this simple question.

Well, it could be if you'd ever ANSWER it....

In a sense, child abuse is already in place. The unborn child is the victim of the ultimate in child abuse, plain and simple. But I don't expect you to understand (or admit you understand) that.

Oh, I understand, all right. I think everyone else does, too. Please, translate it all into pig latin. That would be a much better use of your time than these posts you've been writing.

Another bobinsky, everyone. I guess that is not much of a surprise. I'm not going to pretend to debate with this one--I wasted enough time with Bob. I'll stick to those worth talking to--for now, to me, that's the forum regulars of course, plus sal, driux, we'll see who else. pie is ... not here to debate.

reply from: yoda

Dodging every single question put to you seems to be your only pastime here, pie.

Just as a rhetorical exercise, I'll repeat the question: How can you morally justify supporting all laws, even those you consider "oppressive"?

reply from: AmericanPie

Your question is a dead question. Currently the United States has no laws that can be considered "oppressive". Should one pass...like the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which would intrude government into the private matter of individual reproductive rights...then I would be vehemently against such a law. Should a law pass inviting official discrimination and/or criminalization onto a class of taxpaying citizens...such as homosexuals...that would be an oppressive law and one which I would be vehemently against. Should a law pass that restricts taxpaying Americans on what they can see or read in the media, that would be an oppressive law and one which I would be vehemently against. Get the picture now? Finally? When the U.S. passes an "oppressive" law, I will be there to protest. You, on the other hand, will be celebrating. The more intrusion by government into peoples' personal lives, the better you like it.

I don't dodge your questions, Yod. I answer them, but you prefer to play the manipulative wordplayer here and pick and choose verbage from my answers and then claim I did not answer the question, when I did.

reply from: yoda

Really? We live in a society of perfect laws? Wonderful! How about the Homeland Security laws? You know, the ones that allow the government to do "sneak and peek" searches of anybody's home, without their knowledge? Do you like those? Or the ones that allow the foreign prisoners to be kept indefinately at Guantanamo, do you like those also? Oh my, you must be a right wing nut if you like those, right?

NO, WAIT....... you can't do that.... you said you support ANYTHING THAT IS LEGAL!!

Make up your mind, please!

reply from: Tam

Really? We live in a society of perfect laws? Wonderful! How about the Homeland Security laws? You know, the ones that allow the government to do "sneak and peek" searches of anybody's home, without their knowledge? Do you like those? Or the ones that allow the foreign prisoners to be kept indefinately at Guantanamo, do you like those also? Oh my, you must be a right wing nut if you like those, right?

NO, WAIT....... you can't do that.... you said you support ANYTHING THAT IS LEGAL!!

Make up your mind, please!

I didn't realize--we ALREADY live in the Libertarian Utopia of pie's dreams. Funny that the demopublicans are still in charge, then. Funny, when I was a member of the LP the focus seemed to be the fact that the republicrats had passed so many oppressive laws, that the government was too large, that we needed small government, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. I think we may have met the only Libertarian who thinks we're already there. We have reached governmental perfection. I wonder--did pie feel this way during the Clinton administration? Or is it only Bush who has achieved the Ideal Society?

yoda, I wouldn't bother trying to explain to pie that there might be one or two "oppressive" laws on the books. She supports anything that's legal! Therefore, since she only supports "non-oppressive" laws, all laws must be non-oppressive. That's logic! Isn't it fun?

reply from: AmericanPie

It is, actually! You guys should try it some time!

reply from: Tam

It is, actually! You guys should try it some time!

You know, it's really clever of you to think of such a winning comeback. But if you want to really impress anyone, you should use whatever logic you can come up with to try debating with us. Since you've already demonstrated that you're either unwilling or incapable of that, why do you think that "you guys should try logic sometime!" is going to have any effect on anyone but yourself?

Lest anyone forget the gist of this "conversation"--

pie supports all laws.
pie only supports just laws.
therefore, all laws are just laws.

Ok, pie, your turn! You point out the fallacy in this argument. Because you do know, oh PLEASE tell me you understand this much:

So which is it, O Worshiper of Logic? Which is false?

Premise 1: If it's legal, it's okay with pie!
Premise 2: Pie supports only just laws!
Conclusion: All laws are just laws.

Do you

A) Agree with the conclusion--we already live in the Libertarian Utopia of 100% perfect laws.
B) Disagree with one of the premises--and, which one and why?

I don't know why I'm giving you another chance, but that's what this is, pie in the sky. It's a VERY simple logical argument. It's the SAME very simple logical argument yoda was getting at when he asked you the original question. Last chance to make an honest attempt at this, which I have not seen you make yet. Sorry if this is harsh, but we're sick of non-debaters and you are acting like one.

reply from: AmericanPie

Bingo. And spare me your tiresome drivel about slavery, child abuse, etc., ad nauseum. It's irrelevant.

Who came to this conclusion? You? It wasn't me, sorry if that's how you INTERPRETED it in your twisted logic. There are no perfect laws, Libertarian or otherwise. There never will be. Even if Libs held sway in every single area of government in this country, there would still be no perfect laws. Humankind being prone to fault, nothing a human does is completely without error. And you are the one who used the word "utopia" here, no one else. As a matter of fact, Libs do not believe in a "utopia", reserving the word and its meaning for an Orwellian world where government dictates your every move. Something you evidently would relish.

Your insult elicits only laughter from me. Notice who goes running to the mod complaining about "insults" all the time? YOU people!!!

I've answered your question multiple times now. Can you think of a couple new ones? The straw man has blown away, time to try a new tactic.

reply from: Tam

Bingo.

You are saying you agree with Premise 1. Ok. You've said that numerous times, but it always seems to be qualified with a whole bunch of other stuff. Note, the premise is very simple. But since you've insisted and insisted that you support anything that is legal, ok, I believe you (or, well, I don't believe you do, but I believe you think you do, and that's good enough, I suppose).

Who came to this conclusion? You? It wasn't me, sorry if that's how you INTERPRETED it in your twisted logic. There are no perfect laws, Libertarian or otherwise. There never will be. Even if Libs held sway in every single area of government in this country, there would still be no perfect laws. Humankind being prone to fault, nothing a human does is completely without error. And you are the one who used the word "utopia" here, no one else. As a matter of fact, Libs do not believe in a "utopia", reserving the word and its meaning for an Orwellian world where government dictates your every move. Something you evidently would relish.

So you disagree with the conclusion, but you agree with Premise 1. That means you must disagree with Premise 2 (pie supports only just laws). Great! I also disagree with that premise! In fact, I disagree with both premises.

The only reason I'm using "utopia" is that you claim to support every single law we have on the books. Pretty outrageous claim--I've never heard anyone make it in my entire life. But if that's what you feel you need to do to justify your specious arguments, whatever... If you think every single law we have on the books is just, then we must live in a legal utopia, or at least YOUR ideal world.

reply from: yoda

Poor fellow! I've appartently flustered him so badly he won't respond to my request for his opinion on our Homeland Security laws, or Guantanamo.

First he supports all laws, then he doesn't support any oppressive laws, then he says we don't have any oppressive laws and NEVER WILL have any, and now he won't comment on our most oppressive laws.

Do you sense some lack of focus here?

reply from: Tam

Poor fellow! I've appartently flustered him so badly he won't respond to my request for his opinion on our Homeland Security laws, or Guantanamo.

First he supports all laws, then he doesn't support any oppressive laws, then he says we don't have any oppressive laws and NEVER WILL have any, and now he won't comment on our most oppressive laws.

Do you sense some lack of focus here?

I think "lack of focus" would be infinitely preferable to "deliberate BS"--so I can only hope that it's really the former...

reply from: yoda

Hey, you know what they say: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs"!! 8-O

reply from: AmericanPie

Brilliance isn't your longsuit, and bullshit takes intelligence to know how to fling, Which you don't have, so it looks like you're just...SOL, dude.



Good lord, lol. Just to reassert your lack of...just about everything, I'm afraid...I'm not a "fellow". And I've said so numerous times on this "forum". Apparently, we can add "attention deficit disorder" to your list of problems.

As a matter of fact....I do. But it isn't me who's out of focus when it's you who, after "reading" about 50 posts of mine, STILL didn't pick up on the simple fact...that I ain't a guy. After I spoke of it repeatedly.

You will excuse me while I guffaw? Thanks.

reply from: yoda

Really, it's more like I don't particuarly care what gender you claim...... what difference does it make concerning the points I'm trying to debate?

But once again, you dodge the issue... which is how you feel about the Patriot Act...... do you really not think it's an oppressive law?

Really?

reply from: AmericanPie

Sorry, I didn't even see this question, but now that I do, I wonder WTF it has to do with abortion. Oh, well, bait-and-switch tactics are common here.

Howsomever...

The Patriot Act was a necessary move by this government after 9/11. That is, if we wanted to try to get a handle on all the terrorists who were waltzing into this country, free as little jaybirds. Do I think it's oppressive? No, I do not. Could it "become" oppressive? Indeed it can, given another 8-10 years of oppressive, radical ultra-right-wing rule. By that time, ordinary people walking down the street will be shadowed by government figures, pulled into black vans, held against their will and without counsel, and all merely at the whim of the government...not because they believe anyone is a terrorist. THEN it will be oppressive. THEN we will be a fascist state.

But this danger could be reversed by electing a Libertarian president.

reply from: Tam

Sorry, I didn't even see this question, but now that I do, I wonder WTF it has to do with abortion. Oh, well, bait-and-switch tactics are common here.

Howsomever...

The Patriot Act was a necessary move by this government after 9/11. That is, if we wanted to try to get a handle on all the terrorists who were waltzing into this country, free as little jaybirds. Do I think it's oppressive? No, I do not. Could it "become" oppressive? Indeed it can, given another 8-10 years of oppressive, radical ultra-right-wing rule. By that time, ordinary people walking down the street will be shadowed by government figures, pulled into black vans, held against their will and without counsel, and all merely at the whim of the government...not because they believe anyone is a terrorist. THEN it will be oppressive. THEN we will be a fascist state.

But this danger could be reversed by electing a Libertarian president.

wow...you really DO think we're living in paradise, don't you! amazing...a so-called Libertarian supporting the Patriot Act ... wow.

It's not particularly relevant to abortion, by the way. Which is probably why you finally deigned to answer a direct question. (Talk about bait and switch! THIS is the bait, yoda--she won't answer the next question you try to ask, I'm almost positive.)

reply from: AmericanPie

Still waiting for YOU, Tam, to show us how an embryo can have a consciousness.

Talk about dodge-ball. Oh my goodness!!!!

reply from: AmericanPie

I read on another thread that you consider yourself an anarchist? Or is it a Libertarian 4 Life? You've espoused both. Or do you not know what you want to be when you grow up? In any case, why is this any more amazing than a Libertarian or anarchist supporting a government ban on abortion, no matter the circumstances? Anarchists keep out of government. They hate government. Libertarians like as little government as possible. But they do like the idea of keeping terrorists out of the country, yeah, they like that concept.

You want government to do your bidding. Thus, you either are a liar or a closet religious rightie.

reply from: Tam

I read on another thread that you consider yourself an anarchist? Or is it a Libertarian 4 Life? You've espoused both. Or do you not know what you want to be when you grow up? In any case, why is this any more amazing than a Libertarian or anarchist supporting a government ban on abortion, no matter the circumstances? Anarchists keep out of government. They hate government. Libertarians like as little government as possible. But they do like the idea of keeping terrorists out of the country, yeah, they like that concept.

You want government to do your bidding. Thus, you either are a liar or a closet religious rightie.

Funny, you complain about how no one is particularly interested in your gender and so yoda used the word "fellow" to refer to you, yet every single issue you've raised in this and the previous post indicate to me that you haven't bothered to read MY recent posts on these issues. So, since 1) I already dealt with these issues in posts you can go find if you're actually interested, which I doubt you are; 2) I am not going to be baited by you into answering questions I've already answered repeatedly as a diversion tactic from your avoidance of questions you've dodged repeatedly by claiming you've answered them over and over; 3) you explicitly told me to ignore you not ten minutes ago; and 4) you're not debating with anyway, which supercedes any of the other points--I'm not going to dignify these ridiculous posts with a serious response, despite the fact that I'm sure you'll misinterpret this as dodging. (Look in the mirror, pie.)

reply from: AmericanPie

I was just answering your question, Tam. So that you can't whine that I'm "dodging it".

Whatever. I'm easy.

reply from: yoda

To set your mind at ease, what this has to do with abortion is that you said you supported abortion because it is legal, and that you support all our laws because we have no "oppressive" laws.

But you don't seem to understand the question....... how can the SAME law be "oppressive" then and not NOW simply because of who is in office? Is the wording somehow going to change? If the law can be used to oppress the citizens.... then it IS an oppressive law, isn't it?

reply from: yoda

Perhaps there is a visual problem....... foggy glasses or something?

reply from: Tam

But you don't seem to understand the question....... how can the SAME law be "oppressive" then and not NOW simply because of who is in office? Is the wording somehow going to change? If the law can be used to oppress the citizens.... then it IS an oppressive law, isn't it?

Maybe it's a "potentially oppressive law" -- it's like a "potential person"--it only becomes real when pie says it's real.

reply from: AmericanPie

I understand the question just fine. You can't comprehend the answer. The bill as it is now is not oppressive. Unless of course, you WELCOME terrorists to come right on in and blow our asses up, then of course, it isn't fine. In that case, my bad. Considering how some anti-choicers glorify home-grown terrorists who blow up clinics, this would be understandable on your part.

If this or another administration adds to the bill provisions such as..."the government has the right to confiscate your house if you're suspected (keyword, now, listen up..."suspected") of terrorist activity"....then it becomes an oppressive law. As it stands now, it is not an oppressive law. It's a potentially oppressive law, thank you, Tam. It becomes real when it comes to fruition like a fetus does when it becomes viable.

Is this question now answered, or would you like to twist it upside down and inside out and then claim I didn't answer it, as you seem to get a thrill out of doing?

reply from: yoda

Now we're making REAL progress.... you've pinned yourself down to a particular set of circumstances!

Okay, since you've admitted the POSSIBILITY that oppressive laws could become enacted in this country, would you support them if they were passed? Will you still say "If it's legal, I support it"?

Before viability a fetus isn't "real"? What is it, make-believe?

reply from: AmericanPie

Of course I would "support" it. To not "support" it would land my ass in jail or the gas chamber. Unlike the imbeciles who bomb clinics and then leave their calling cards all over the place so that the feds come right to their door, and then they go to jail with this big defiant smile on their faces, perhaps oblivious to the fact that once there, they will be gang-raped like a freight train.

Now then, to work behind the scenes to subvert it and the oppressive government responsible for it? That's a different ballgame altogether. I didn't say acquiescence, did I?

reply from: AmericanPie

No. Just something that cannot survive outside a woman's womb. Which is, errrr....what the word "viable" means. In case you didn't know.

reply from: yoda

Compliance with a law is a vastly different thing from supporting it. Do you really not see the difference?

Was this supposed to mean something to me?

So then do I take it correctly that we can NOW dispense with the "If it's legal it's fine with me" slogan?

reply from: yoda

Let's cut to the chase: Do you concede that an unborn human is a member of the species Homo sapiens, or not?

reply from: AmericanPie

It will be when it's born. Until then, it's like taking my liver or my husband's pancreas and saying "this is a member of the species Homo sapiens."

Clear?

reply from: Allizdog2000

it will be when it's born. Until then, it's like taking my liver or my husband's pancreas and saying "this is a member of the species Homo sapiens."

Clear?

No, it is not clear. That is a lousey argument. A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of the body, the unborn's genetic code differs from their mother's.

So, it is not like taking your husband pancreas and saying "this is a member of the species Homo Sapien", NO, it is a body part, and internal organ from a homosapien.

Try again.

reply from: AmericanPie

That is my answer. To me, a fetus is not a viable member of this species until it is born or can live outside the womb. Period. End of story.

If you do not agree with me, tough. I'll not lose sleep over it.

reply from: Allizdog2000

If it isn't a member of this species, that what species does it belong to? So viablity is what makes us human? or a Dog? or A cat? or a horse?

"One can make a pretty convincing argument, however, that fetuses are persons. They are alive, their species in Homo Sapiens" - Judge Michael McConnell.

Their Genetic code is different from the Father and the Mother. Their cells are living. Their cells are HUMAN. So, It is a Human Being!

Hopefully this means we've seen the last of you and your piss poor arguments.

reply from: AmericanPie

Hell no. I'm here till I'm banned. Which will no doubt be soon because none of you can take the heat for your asinine rationale for controlling every woman's body in this f'ing country.

reply from: Allizdog2000

You can't get banned for being ignorant. The debates and agruments aren't going to get hot for us, it's going to get hot for you! No one here want's to control a woman's body. We are speaking out against abortion, lobbying for Roe V. Wade being over turned.

I cannot support abortion for many different reasons nor will I ever compromise with any Anti-Lifers/Pro-Abortionists. You are going to attempt to "make us see the light" (and you WILL fail) or get your agression out on this issue you are passionate about.

So, try your best.

reply from: AmericanPie

I'm not trying to make you see anything. That would be like trying to get a turnip to recite the Pledge. I'm simply expressing my opinion as you are expressing yours. Just think...if people like me weren't here to stir the pot, how boring it would be for all of you crying on each other's shoulders day in and day out. Yawn.

By denying the right for all women to make their own decisions, you are controlling not only their bodies, but their lives as well. Glad that dilemma isn't on MY shoulders!

Does it look to you like I can't stand the heat? Be real, now.

Thanks. I plan to. Until someone eventually tires of reading the truth and bans me.

reply from: Allizdog2000

You mean the LIES??

reply from: AmericanPie

Nope. The truth. Which is the anti-choicers' wish to bodily control over half the population of this country. That's a mighty feat. You may just get your wish, if W appoints Christian Dominionist judges to the SC as many seem to think he will do. But I'll have had no part in it, happily.

reply from: yoda

What a noble sounding phrase....... "make their own decisons"....... !!

Why restrict it to women thinking about abortion? Why not women thinking about killing their husbands?

Why do you want to deny women the right to kill their husbands, you dictator!

reply from: sarah

Nothing may be on your shoulders, but blood is on your hands. I'll take the shoulder problem, thank you.

You sure are paranoid about being banned. Like Tam said, if bob-o didn't get banned you're safe.
However, if you want to be able to drop the paranoia, then clean up the trash mouth and you're troubles are over.

reply from: AmericanPie

*looks down at hands* Sorry. No blood to be seen.

Not paranoid at all. I just know it'll happen because of the nature of this board (militantly anti-choice) and the nature of me (supporting all people to make their own decisions, thank you). The two never gel. And since this board is owned by anti-choicers, the desire to silence me will eventually hold sway.

Unless of course, that a point has been made not to do so, to try and prove me wrong.

reply from: yoda

It will be when it's born. Until then, it's like taking my liver or my husband's pancreas and saying "this is a member of the species Homo sapiens." Clear?
It's clear that you are claiming that an unborn human is merely an organ of a pregnant woman. What function does this "organ" perform for the woman? Do you have any supporting documentation, or is that just another proabort slogan?

For those who are actually interested, here's what a human being actually is:

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species

MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

Please note that they say nothing about birth, or about changing from an organ to an "individual". That's simply made-up disqualifiers for the convenience of those who wish to see unborn humans destroyed.

reply from: AmericanPie

It's neither, actually. It's my own personal view. Until it is viable, it is a part (or "organ" if you will) of the mother. That's just how I look at it. And please spare me your "moral" diatribes about it.

reply from: yoda

And the actual, verifiable definition of the words has no effect on your "personal view", do they?

In other words, you start from your conclusion (that you want women to be able to kill their unborn children) and then construct a fabrication to support it.

reply from: Tam

Yes, yoda, you have it exactly right. That is the ENTIRE pro-choice methodology.

reply from: sarah

And the actual, verifiable definition of the words has no effect on your "personal view", do they?

In other words, you start from your conclusion (that you want women to be able to kill their unborn children) and then construct a fabrication to support it.

How else can they support the wholesale slaughter of the developing child, most often on just a whim? It's very grateing on them to point this most important fact out.

reply from: yoda

I'll bet we're gonna miss ole pie....... kinda like a toothache.......

reply from: sarah

I warned her about cleaning up her foul mouth, but the pro-aborts would rather act the martyr.
Pathetic.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics