The Republicans And The Christian Right: They Want To Decide For Us All

From Concerned the Christian now Liberated:

Ah, another bred, born and brainwashed member of orthodoxy, aka Pseudo, the wannabee poet, has been added to the list of those who have fallen under the pagan spell of first century Palestine, peasant superstitions.

Dear Pseudo,

HELP. Arminius and I are at work on the epic of the Confused Croissant (CCNL), sole follower of Fluff the Magic Muffin. After having written his famous Part the Fifth, Arminius has gone off, leaving me to forge ahead. Alas and alack, my muse has departed, uninterested in matters pastryfic. Without you, I fear the travails, the heroic journey of the Croissant will go unsung. He will remain forever undigested....

If you might bring your famed lyre to Prof. S-A's thread, generations of poets will praise you, and the Croissant may yet return to wherever he came from.

Farnaz

Ah Hah! Susan, your board is broken. Post a comment tells me my ender2 user ID will be displayed with my comment, but is shows up as anonymous. I feel kinda silly now.

Susan?

Why is your board still allowing anonymous posters? Responces to them are pointless since I might be responding to any of a group of poster.

To you anonymous arses, using a consistant screen name allows for a conversation vs your TROLLING.

From Concerned the Christian now Liberated:

Is not a person suffering from dementia and/or Alzheimer's not worth caring for?? Care for the elderly and sick comes with being responsible and loving human beings. Did not these persons care for their babies and children for the first 18 years and sometimes more of their kids'lives and you cannot return the same help to them ?????

Pseudo,

Where art thou?

To CCNL:

You said: That gives some rational for killing the unborn or those suffering from dementia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???

My mother was diagnosed with Alzheimers over 17 years ago. She died two years ago. The last 8 years of her life were spent unable to walk, talk, or acknowledge another person. The last 3 years were spent without an ability to to respond to sound.

During the last 4-5 years of her life, she was not human in the real sense. She had no emotions, no personality, no hopes, no fears. She was trapped in a body that refused to die.

Based on the conversations we had while growing up, she never wanted to be in this position. But legally, there was nothing we could do, until the disease finally interfered with her ability to breath.

Our legal system does not allow us to terminate the life of someone who is no longer human and the funds for her care and feeding would be better spent on other, viable people.

I lost my mother 10 years ago when she stopped talking and interacting with anything or anyone. Her body was kept running by feeding her and by the extraordinary care of the staff.

Now, are you trying to say that a 2 day old clump of cells is human? Are you saying that the moral thing to do is to keep someone like that alive for 5 or 10 years?

Karen wrote: When someone makes a decision to stop the beating of a human heart by force- it is called MURDER.

And when there is no heart or nervous system or brain or higher functioning but rather a clump of cells, why is this human?

Many religions take the position that human life begins at conception. But that's an arbitrary definition. When is something human? That's the question.

From Concerned the Christian now Liberated:

Hmmm, so a growing baby is considered by some to be nothing more than an infection? Talk about having no respect for life!!!!!

And Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rational for killing the unborn or those suffering from dementia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???

We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succumb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!

Nature, and Nature's God, as our founding father's only referrence to any divine figurehead, is THE NUMBER ONE PROVIDER OF ABORTION IN THE US. Between 15 and 20% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.

Induced abortion only accounts for less than 2% of terminated pregnancies.

I think xtian hypocrits need to pray to their ANTI-CHOICE GOD about the abortion issue. He(obviously a male god) is obviously pro-abortion, but antichoice.

My personal knowledge of Christians indicate most of the fundamentalist ones agree. They tend to be prodeath, but antichoice.

Its sad that humans create such nasty religions.

CCNL:
And ripping out a baby from her mother's womb is not malicious??????
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wishes of the host outweigh the wishes of the occupant. Abortion, especially in the early stages of gestation, is no more malicious than taking an antibiotic to rid oneself of a bacterial infection is.

Halozcel

Lepidopteryx says *it's impossible to live without ever harming anything*

Yes,correct.

We should protect woman as much as fetus.

Lepidopteryx, Lepidopteryx, Lepidopteryx,

And ripping out a baby from her mother's womb is not malicious??????

CCNL:

You know not of what you speak when you refer to the Rede. This has been explained to you repeatedly before, but since you appear to have selective amnesia, I'll remind you.

It isn't simply "Do no harm." Since every living thing gains its nourishment at the cost of another living thing's life, it's impossible to live without ever harming anything.

"Harming none, do as you will" - the "will" aspect of that phrase doesn't equate to "whim" - it refers to the influence of your intent, attitude, context of your actions on those actions.
In other words, don't do harm maliciously.

Poor, poor Farnaz, continues to be under a Wiccan spell.

This chant to eliminate said spell did not work:

"Evil magic, draw back!
Evil magic can't come near
This is my will, so mote it be."

So something stronger is needed: Try one or all of these:

Essential oils of peppermint, wintergreen and chamomile

Stir a few TINY drops of the above oil into the arrowroot powder. Stir to blend.

When the powder is mixed in with the protective oils, sprinkle it all over your home or wherever negative energy from the hex resides.

Ash Hex-Breaker

Collect a basket full of leaves that have fallen from an Ash tree. While stirring the leaves in the basket with both your hands, speak about your fears and what you would like to happen to get rid of them. Now scatter the leaves in all directions.

Curse Removal powder
Gather the following:
1 Tbsp sandalwood powder
1 Tbsp frankincense
1 Tbsp myrrh
1 cup crushed pine needles
Grind and powder the above. After a nice, cleansing bath, light charcoal and
burn the above powder. Meditate on the removal and resulting peace of mind until
the entire powder is charred.
Take the remains and scatter them in the wind.

Salt and Dragon's blood bath
Add Dragon's blood powder to jojoba oil. To create an essential oil of dragon's blood. Mix this with half a cup of salt and bathe in this water.
Repeat until curse is removed."

Try the following:

Dear Pseudo,

My mother has two friends, both in their late fifties, both scientists. One is pro-choice, the other pro-life. Neither is "pro-abortion," a position no one holds, in fact.

At all events, these two women are as close as sisters, yet the matter of abortion, they cannot discuss. They went to college together and have been close friends lo these many years.

For both "sides," this is a very, very serious issue, and neither seems capable of giving much ground. Some pro-lifers are now ready to grant that incested children, raped women and children, women whose pregnancies endanger their lives, etc., should be permitted to have abortions, but these pro-lifers appear to be in the minority.

Some pro-choicers, perhaps many, oppose late-term abortions. That's about it. So, I have to agree with Susan on this. Discussion doesn't seem to get us anywhere since there is little, if any, common ground.

Would it were otherwise.

Regards,
Farnaz

For a Confused Croissant:

Part the First

Fluff the Magic Muffin
Liked to ring a bell
He had but one adherent
T'was CCNL

-Farnaz 2008

Poor, poor Farnaz, continues to be under a Wiccan spell.

This chant might work:

"Evil magic, draw back!
Evil magic can't come near
This is my will, so mote it be."

And maybe these facts will help:

Professor Bruce Chilton pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. Basically Paul was a "prude". An excerpt for Chilton's book,

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

And Paul (or his "wannabees") the Prophet? Hardly, he could not even get the timing of Jesus' second coming correct but it did serve to dramatically increase both the conversions and the coffers. Hmmm, contemporary preachers/fortune tellers/Mormon "profiteers" still use that con game.

Confused Croissant:

And then of course there was your Christian Paul, who preferred you just stay celibate and hasten the end of the world.

How does that square with Muffinism, overall?

Btw., the prophets were not "mythical." Unlike Yehoshua, we know they existed, but again, I'm no Muffinist.

Terra, Terra, Terra,

So jackasses have souls? Cold and flu viruses have souls, streptococcus pneumoniae have souls? Black widow spiders have souls? Not such a safe perception!!!! And a very strange belief!!! Some witchcraft or Wiccan revelation??

And citing the mythical OT as evidence of God's dislike for children? You know better than that since the obvious rules of "do no harm" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" vitiates all the mythical passages you cite.

And obviously the writers of said mythical OT knew nothing about the microbiology of conception.

CCNL,

"The soul (if it exists) separates personkind from the animalkind. If personkind starts at conception then said soul is present at said conception."

Now how about if I believe that all life has a soul? That my cat has a soul...and a very dear one. Or my horses? or that little frog on my window? How about if i believe that is what we have from being created by the same Divine Source? That the trees and the mountains and I have the same spark of the DNA of the same Creator.
That egg you had for breakfast could have been a fertilized being with a soul...

It all ends up being a matter of perspective and belief. I think people need to worry more about how they treat life that is here and stop worrying about what no one can Know.

terra

I have been doing a little research about the bible and what it says about abortion.

From what I have been able to discover...the word abortion does not appear in the bible. Here is something I found that covers it.

According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

Many antiabortionists quote the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13) as evidence that the bible is antiabortion. They fail to investigate the bible's definition of life (breath) or its deafening silence on abortion. Moreover, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25, directly following the Ten Commandments, makes it clear that an embryo or fetus is not a human being.

An honest reader must admit that the bible contradicts itself. "Thou shalt not kill" did not apply to many living, breathing human beings, including children, who are routinely massacred in the bible. The Mosaic law orders "Thou shalt kill" people for committing such "crimes" as cursing one's father or mother (Ex. 21:17), for being a "stubborn son" (Deut. 21:18-21),or even for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-35)! Far from protecting the sanctity of life, the bible promotes capital punishment for conduct which no civilized person or nation would regard as criminal.

Mass killings were routinely ordered, committed or approved by the God of the bible. One typical example is Numbers 25:4-9, when the Lord casually orders Moses to massacre 24,000 Israelites: "Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun." Clearly, the bible is not pro-life!

The bible is not pro-child. Why did God set a bear upon 42 children just for teasing a prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Far from demonstrating a "pro-life" attitude, the bible decimates innocent babies and pregnant women in passage after gory passage, starting with the flood and the wanton destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, progressing to the murder of the firstborn child of every household in Egypt (Ex. 12:29), and the New Testament threats of annihilation.

Space permits only a small sampling of biblical commandments or threats to kill children:

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.
Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.
I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.
Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

The teachings and contradictions of the bible show that antiabortionists do not have a "scriptural base" for their claim that their deity is "pro-life." Spontaneous abortions occur far more often than medical abortions. Gynecology textbooks conservatively cite a 15% miscarriage rate, with one medical study finding a spontaneous abortion rate of almost 90% in very early pregnancy. That would make a deity in charge of nature the greatest abortionist in history!

The antiabortion position does not demonstrate love for humanity, or compassion for real human beings. Worldwatch Institute statistics show that 50% of abortions worldwide are illegal, and that at least 200,000 women die every year--and thousands more are hurt and maimed--from illegal or self-induced abortions. Unwanted pregnancies and complications from multiple pregnancies are a leading killer of women. Why do antiabortionists want North American women to join these ghastly mortality statistics? Every day around the world more than 40,000 people, mostly children, die from starvation or malnutrition. We must protect and cherish the right to life of the already-born.

Belief that "a human being exists at conception" is a matter of faith, not fact. Legislating antiabortion faith would be as immoral and unAmerican as passing a law that all citizens must attend Catholic mass!

The bible does not condemn abortion; but even if it did, we live under a secular constitution, not in a theocracy. The separation of church and state, the right to privacy, and women's rights all demand freedom of choice.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.,

terra

I think the middle ground starts with the acknowledgment by both sides that every abortion is a tragedy. Unfortunately - too many women are faced with personal circumstances in which carrying the pregnancy to term would lead to even greater tragedy in their lives.

If both sides would agree on this, then perhaps we could work together as a society to make sure that fewer women are faced with situations where every option is tragic.

(Posted by NotSoGreatScot)

Pseudo, you great rhymer!

As for Susan, I fear that dialogue between pro-life and pro-choice really is not possible, for the reasons another blogger gave: one side gives priority to the mother, the other to the fertilized egg or fetus. Each argues from different grounds; hence, there is no "common ground" on which to hold a discussion.

Differences in point of view, however, must never get in the way of great verse. Thus spake the muse, eons ago.

Farnaz

O Dear Goddess Susan, who blithely decides the great issues of life
If a zygote is a human, or might well come under the knife

The choices to you are so simple, and O so clear and plain
But to those O so real people, who live it, it can be filled with very real pain

And of those Others you so freely, and so easily do disdain
Who have a point of view that you would consider insane
Who chose to keep some children who might never full functions gain
I pleased that your answers are simple, but I wonder what truth they contain

From Concerned the Christian now Liberated

Is it obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone????? Of course it is!!!!

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs.

Might a list of those having a STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

Decision 2008 has two tickets with real possibilities of winning. Both are religious tickets, which mean that all four candidates are capable of checking their intelligence at the door when attending services (I can’t be sure if Palin has something to check at the door).

On the other hand, I have certain level of confidence that one of them, Obama, is going to be capable most of the time of checking his religious beliefs at the door when entering to the oval office to govern the country. I don’t believe this is true for McCain. Palin shows herself not only as religious, but a dangerous fanatic. I don’t know much about Biden, but at least the man shows that he has experience, has a brain and knows how to use it.

Why my confidence in Obama? He unequivocally separated from his crazy preacher, spiritual mentor and a family friend. Political posturing? Maybe. But at least Obama demonstrated some level of independence that is not seen in McCain in this regard.

This religious factor is part of the sad reality of election 08. No one of the four has been capable of drawing a line between governing and beliefs as clearly as Kennedy did.

In comparing other aspects of the candidates, IMO, all fail to get high ratings, but Obama keeps being the least bad. Sad but true in my opinion. But the alternative is worst: more Bush kind of years with more crusades, more unemployment, more financial crisis …

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

test

from Daniel in the Lion's Den

The last 2 anonymous were me.

Now, I suppose, everyone will be anonymous. How is that going to make everyone more polite?

I posted that last comment, but I am not sure why my user id was not displayed. There still seems to be an awful lot of bugs here. I think WaPo should put a little more money into this, to make the it work properly.

"...intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control..."

Wow!

That expalins everything.

test

"Pills to arouse and pills to abort so where are the pills to eliminate the sex drive?"

CCNL, will you please give this a rest? We have memories, and a sex drive banished is yet remembered and missed.

No one would continue to take the pills. Castrated sex offenders seek out hormone therapy to return their potency.

Ain't gonna happen.

v

So, how come Ms. Jacoby"s thread don"t have the following registeration condition by WaPo On Faith as she did advocate so much for it. Other panelists already have this bit of reminder on their blogs/threads.

"Dear Readers: We now require commenters to register at washingtonpost.com and sign in before posting. Your MyPost User ID, which you'll be asked to choose if you haven't done so already, will be displayed with your comment. We hope this will encourage more topical, spam-free, and respectful discussions."

Cheers

J

It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

I heard a protestant minister talk about needing to preserve the option of "terminating a pregnancy" to save the woman's life. Let's assume in this case, that due to the woman's health issues, there would be no guarantee of a live birth. And how about those who learn that the fetus they are carrying has such defects as will result in a painful and likely very short life?

It is not wisdom to see the world as simple and uncomplicated: an individual that has complete trust and confidence in the righteousness of their opinion and perspective does not look to refine their views by engaging those not like minded in dialog.

Pass most new laws, or strike down most old ones, and some individuals gain advantage or satisfaction while others lose. I do think the Roe v. Wade decsion is becoming more politicized than it ever has been, and one party is looking to retain its hold on these one issue voters.

A moral government should evaluate its policies against gains and losses to the collective citizenry, in long and short terms. You might have guessed that I am pro-choice. I am not an atheist, but I do not think this issue is the sole property of ones religious belief. Sex crimes happen, and its victims are predominantly female. I believe our justice system owes these victims every concession towards making them "whole", which should include offering them the morning after pill, and later, the option to abort this pregnancy, and to seek counselling from a qualified professional.

Does it better serve society to force these victims to accept the fetus growing inside these women as their baby? It wasn't their choice to conceive. Doesn't consent, intent, or lack thereof, count for anything in these cases?

If you agree that there is even one instance where abortion is not unjustified, than whom do you propose sit in judgement of when that condition is met? I think we should care more about minimizing the number of babies born into desparate straights than those who never were.

A question to everyone who wants to ban abortion:

Will we be arresting and prosecuting women who have abortions? How many years will they get for having an abortion?

Do you honestly think that making something illegal will stop the practice?

What about women who have to terminate their pregancies because of serious fetal abnormalities? Should they be punished as well?

Who is going to pay for all of the unwanted children that will be put into the foster care system?

Note to Christians and Catholics. Here's a nice juicy bit from the Quoran. More to come.

5:72-73: They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God, - God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrongdoers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

"the definition of murder is: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

Agathodemon, I was using "murder" to mean the taking of any human life regardless of the circumstances. I wasn't using the legal definition. If I had to murder an assailant to protect myself and my family, I would feel tremendous guilt for doing so despite the outcome.

"If you truly believed that abortion was equivalent to bashing out the brains of 1 week old, then any measures would be acceptable to prevent such a act."

That's not my view - I don't regard such situations in terms of absolutes. I could imagine a situation where it would be necessary to murder the 1-week-old to prevent the deaths of many other people. Again, I'm not saying this would be the case with an abortion, I'm merely talking about legalization versus criminalization. I consider myself pro-life personally and pro-choice legally and politically.

"There is no biblical support for viewing an abortion as equal to murder, and the penalties in the OT for a miscarriage caused by violence is very different from causing the death of the mother."

What difference does it make if there is biblical support? No religion's scripture is the final say on morality, and for government to treat any scripture as such would be tantamount to theocracy.

"For whatever reason, abortion has become the cause celebre for the Religious Right in their front lines of the culture wars - everything evil flows from abortion."

I agree.

Compare numbers and you will see where I struggle-

D.C. Aims to Publicize City's HIV-AIDS Epidemic

"New reports of AIDS in the District were coming in at the rate of 128 per 100,000, in contrast to 14 cases per 100,000 nationally. One in 50 residents is thought to have the disease.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the District has the highest rate of AIDS among African Americans in the country: 277.5 for every 100,000 people. It also has the highest rate of new cases reported among Hispanics: 109.2 for every 100,000 people."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092402474_2.html?sid=ST2008092404243&s_pos=

Agathodaimon returns as I am leaving.

I have worked with HIV/AIDS patients for twenty years. So from my mindset- a pregnancy is the happy consequence of an unprotected sex act.

Read those statistics and please think.

Bye-bye.

Here are the statistics:

US Abortion Rate Lowest Since Legalization; Racial Disparities Persist

"Hispanic women obtained abortion at a rate three times the rate of non-Hispanic white women; the rate among black women was five times the rate of non-Hispanic white women. But abortion rates have fallen since 1980 for all racial and ethnic groups - white women saw a drop of 30%, Hispanic women 20%, and black women 15%.

Why the dramatic racial disparities? "Behind virtually every abortion is an unintended pregnancy. And because women of color are much more likely to experience unintended pregnancies than any other group, they are also more likely to seek and obtain abortions," Rachel Jones, Guttmacher Institute senior research associate, said in a statement."

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/09/22/us-abortion-rate-lowest-since-legalization-racial-disparities-persist

Anon -

Well, I see you're still projecting and spouting nonsense. I will concede that I was once a fertilized ova, but I was also once an unfertilized ova [half], and once one of many thousand of sperm [again half]. My answer is so what? You seem to equate a fully functional adult [or to be fair] a post partum child with a fertilized ova. Both the unfertilized ova and the individual sperm that contributed to my genetic makeup played a part in determining my adult capabilities, but again so what? All those other lost sperm and unfertilized ova would have done the same. My "humaness" and personality are the result of this genetic predisposition and my life experiences. I was only a potential human being as a fertilized ova, just as the sperm and ova that later developed into my physical body were half a potential human being. We are clearly operating in different frames of reference, and this probably proves one of the points Susan made in her posting. You continually project emotions on to me as if they were somehow real. The place where we agree - i.e. that abortions are not a good thing, is completely ignored. We could [not likely given the mocking nature of your postings] potentially agree that reducing the number of abortions was a good first step. You would simply impose your dogmatic anti-abortion view and criminalize abortions [apologies if I have misread you on this]. I would propose comprehensive sex education and contraceptive availability. These measures have been shown to reduce the number of abortions. You address none of the other issues that I mentioned, unless the "negatively religion obsessed" comment was meant as one. I merely pointed out that neither the bible, nor your deity consider a fertilized ova a human being. This is proven by the number that the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-compassionate deity of the bible chooses to abort through the process of miscarriage. Now since I would not in any sense consider these fetuses as human beings, the death of the fetus gives me no pause - now the suffering of the woman having the miscarriage is another matter. I think that I have explained how I have reached my conclusions, but except for the ad hominem attacks, I do not have a clear view on what you base your view on abortion. If they are not religiously based, I would be happy to hear them - but I suspect that they are, so your religion is the unmentioned guest at this discussion. My thoughts are anti-religious in what context? Surely, not in the opinion of St. Augustine, and the Catholic church did not have an anti-abortion posture until late in the 19th Century. The OT - as I have pointed out clearly has different punishments for causing a miscarriage and committing murder, so apparently the deity has had a change of mind about this. So, besides your feelings, what exactly is the basis for your anti-abortion position? You can skip the mocking ad hominems, because you will not get a rise out of me. They are an expression of your emotions and have nothing to do with either me or mine.

RU-486 from answers.com

Mifepristone is a synthetic steroid compound used as a pharmaceutical. It is used as an abortifacient in the first two months of pregnancy, and in smaller doses as an emergency contraceptive.

It can also be used as a treatment for obstetric bleeding.[1] During early trials, it was known as RU-486, its designation at the Roussel Uclaf company, which designed the drug. The drug was initially made available in France, and other countries then followed—often amid controversy. In France and countries other than the United States it is marketed and distributed by Exelgyn Laboratories under the tradename Mifegyne. In the United States it is sold by Danco Laboratories under the tradename Mifeprex. (The drug is still commonly referred to as "RU-486".)

RU-486 is now available on-line without a prescription and therefore the destruction of life is now solely a decision of the carrier of said life.

"Now we have RU-486, a concoction that will kill the fetus with certainty, "

Incorrect.

RU-486 would actually have less effect on a fetus than the plastics we're expected to keep drnking out of.

RU-486 prevents implantation of a blastula, not even an embryo, never mind a fetus.

Don't try and get 'sciencey' if you don't even know the terms.

Roe v Wade civilized our society. Prior to that time, women were regularly having late-term abortions, back-room abortions, committing infanticide, and dumping babies on the state and relatives.

Now we have RU-486, a concoction that will kill the fetus with certainty, rather just causing fetal alcohol syndrome, fetal herion syndrome, HIV/AIDS, and other birth defects that cost society billions.

Whether Roe is reversed and returned to the states, the drug that kills fetuses will be readily available since its manufacture will still be legal and its distribution on the internet will make it easily obtainable.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides about Roe, abortion will remain safe, inexpensive, and convenient, provided women act before the fetus is 8 1/2 months olds.

Dear Pseudo,

Where art thou, Pseudo? I am heartsick and long for the comfort of your sweet songs.

Farnaz

"Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Tis the Congress that approves expenditures."

I understand, understand, understand. Read the Times, Times, Times. THe prez, prez, prez is pushing the bailout, bailout, bailout.

Farnaz (x3)

Humor me.

I believe in you. More than you strictly deserve.

Ain't that funny?

I mean, hey. Sweet Goddess gentle and strong, Rubdel, how am I supposed to take this seriously when you don't know left from right?

*laughing more than is probably decent.*

No wonder it all comes out backwards. :)

Have some mercy on a tired old lady, fella. You can always screw it up later. Let's work with what we got, for now. K?

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Tis the Congress that approves expenditures.

I mean, OK. I have heard an *exceptional* number of dumb things in my life. But that just takes the biscuit.

I mean, under any other circumstance I would think it presumptious to speak for your God. But if you put it *that* way, ....

Your *other* right.

Gods.

While we're busy discussing an issue that won't come up tomorrow, our Fundie prez could con us out of 700 million dollars in the next day or two.

This New York Times editorial mentions an excellent alternative that does appeal to both liberals and conservatives. This isn't a good time to be distracted by anything that can wait a few days. In the five boroughs of New York City, for rent and for sale signs are going up at an unprecedented rate.

For more on this possible disaster go to NewYorkTimes.com.

Editorial

An Inadequate Case for the Bailout

Under skeptical questioning in the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, gave no ground in defense of their $700 billion proposal to bail out the financial system.

They also gave little reason to believe that their proposal would protect taxpayers from huge losses. Instead, they said that any eventual loss would be less than the losses that Americans would endure if lending froze up, as it did briefly last week in the panicked aftermath of the failure of Lehman Brothers and the near-death of the American International Group.

The candor is appreciated, but it is not a good enough answer for Congress or the American people. Rather than rushing to approve the $700 billion bailout, lawmakers need to examine alternatives. They should look for one that ideally would let taxpayers share in the gains from any postbailout revival, along with the bankers and private investors who will make money if the bailout succeeds. Several ideas have been advanced that Congress should examine.

Prominent among them is a plan to make a direct investment of taxpayer dollars into financial firms, rather than buying up their bad assets. With that money, the firms could absorb the losses that they are bound to take as their investments go sour and avert failure and panic. Once the firms begin to recover, taxpayers would earn a return. Such equity investments are risky, however, and careful analysis is needed to show if they would be riskier than what the administration has proposed.

Another proposal, advanced by Senator Christopher Dodd, would buy up bad assets, as proposed by the administration, but would give the government the option to acquire stock in the firms receiving help. The danger is that private investors, fearful of seeing their ownership stakes diluted if the government becomes a shareholder, might be reluctant to invest money. That would deprive the firms of investments they need to recover.

There is time to clarify that sort of uncertainty. The financial system is vulnerable to more severe problems, but the credit squeeze has eased a bit since the administration’s bailout was proposed. That’s partly because of the expectation of a bailout, so Congress should be clear that it is working on a plan with appropriate speed.

Credit markets have also been helped by emergency measures that have shored up the system, including a $50 billion government guarantee of money market mutual funds. The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has helped to keep mortgage rates on the low side.

One thing is certain. If taxpayers do not share in the potential profits from a bailout, someone else will. On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve announced that it was relaxing rules that require investors who take large stakes in banks to submit to longstanding regulations on transparency and managerial control. Private equity firms have pushed for the changes because they would like to become big investors in beaten-down banks but do not want to be regulated.

Relaxing the rules invites more of the same type of opacity and risk-taking into banking that caused many of today’s financial problems. Politically, the Fed’s timing could not have been worse. Taxpayers are being asked to buy up banks’ junky assets, with little expectation of return. At the same time, private equity firms are being invited to make what are likely to be highly profitable investments in the same banks.

That’s not a plan that lawmakers and voters can support. Congress has more work to do.

I mean, not to quibble, but, yaknow. His right, your left, all that, no, my right, knucklehead.

" rubdel:

""Here is the real difference between the Right and the Left:"

""Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the
world.

"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels""

Neat.

Weren't you actually supposed to be *facing* yer Lord, though, Rubdel?

Diversion.

Now that the 'moralistic party' has cashed in and all the chickens have come home to roost, only moral absolutism can spare the plebs the shame of what they *demanded* now that it hits em in the pocketbook.

Roe V. Wade.

You *really* want to sign away your right to privacy in unrealistic hopes they'll 'stop abortion' to distract you from how you *can't feed your kids?

Go house.

Karen

All you have to contribute is sarcasm and inuendo about how people's political opinions make them baby killers.

Don't you have to actaully kill a baby to be a baby killer?

And do you think merely expressing a point of view that is pro-life makes you a saviour of babies and better than everyone else? Do you think your chronic sarcasm helps any babies whom you think are being killed? No.

This is your neurotic ompulsion to demonstrate to God what a good person you are without actaully committing to do anything.

Just run your mouth with you gritty sarcastic meanness; earn your special place in Heaven.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the
world.

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels"

ICK. Spare us your NT Chrsitofascist psychosis. Beginning to end it's a good read for lunatics.

Here is the real difference between the Right and the Left:

"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the
world.

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels"

GO Parenting there pop tart.
http://www.adoptionnetwork.com
All can be saved and some causes just get more challenging. Killing is always the last option. We have people to do that too.

Pills to arouse and pills to abort so where are the pills to eliminate the sex drive?

Who needs them you say? Catholic priests, teenagers, young adults and Muslim husbands.

Of course, "auditioning your finger puppets" (Google it)
is a lot cheaper and safer.

Vote: "COLD TURKEY" for All Robber Barons NGO Financial Institutions!

VOTE: Abolish the [NGO] FED-Reserve!:

Abolish the FED-Reserve!

Remember: Haste MaKES WASE! Do not Let the Satans [ Lame Duck Prez Bush & Co.] Push Ye to decide Now!

Vote: "COLD TURKEY" for NGO Financial Institutions! Abolish the FED-Reserve!

Vote: "COLD TURKEY" for NGO Financial Institutions!

Not Tax-Payers Money! Tell Them, "The Survival of the Fittest Applies Too!"

REMEMBER Ye History, Ye Jury & Everybody’s Biz:

The FEDERAL RESERVE (a Robber Baron Bank SYSTEM, not Secular!), was Created on HASTE on Christmas-Eve 1913! The Federal Reserve is Contrary to the U.S. Constitution that Lets CONGRESS, not Federal Reserve’ to Create Money! Please see Quasi Fed Reserve Robber Baron's SYSTEM with Parachutes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

Hark Democrat Party, Do not Make Haste; else waist!

Do Not Go For That 'REPUBliCAN" ROBBER-BARON & CAPTAINS of INDUSTRY" Con Job & Satanic trick , word NOW! NOW NOW!NOW!

No No No It Could Wait!!!!!!!!!! DO-NOT RUSH!

IT's Not an E-M=E=R=G=E-N-C-Y!!!!

IT's Not an E-M=E=R=G=E-N-C-Y!!!!

IT's Not an E-M=E=R=G=E-N-C-Y!!!!

VOTE: NO NO NO Bail-Out NOW! It Could Wait January 2009, not 2008!

VOTE: NO NO NO Bail-Out NOW! It Could Wait January 2009, not 2008!

VOTE: NO NO NO Bail-Out NOW! It Could Waite January 2009, not 2008!

---

The Federal so called CREDIt-System' Exageraters, is a FEDERAL RESERVER (tantamount to an ERON trick via the Chairman ben Bernanki (Bush Evangelical Fronts) & the U.S. Treasury Polson [Bush Evangelical Fronts!)

ScHAME McCain! ScSHAME Trying To Get-out of thgis F R i D A Y's Debate, via Rush to Bail-out his "FRIENDS"! (not Our Friends!)!!!!! Tryin to Get Out of a one to one genuine (religio Free) Debate!!!

WAiT for The Bail, if any, AFTER the E L E C T i O N!

Where Are Ye EVANGELiCALS?? Rick Warren, Robertson, Hagee, Huckabees et al???? We Are Waiting. STOP HiDiNg Evangelicals etc.!

W A R N I N G: Do Not Fall fot the "TELL A BiG LIE" TRick [a Political Strategy!]

Thank-A-ScHame!

Vote: "COLD TURKEY" for All Robber Barons NGO Financial Institutions!

VOTE: Abolish the [NGO] FED-Reserve!:

Abolish the FED-Reserve!

Remember: Haste MaKES WASE! Do not Let the Satans [ Lame Duck Prez Bush & Co.] Push Ye to decide Now!

Vote: "COLD TURKEY" for NGO Financial Institutions! Abolish the FED-Reserve!

Vote: "COLD TURKEY" for NGO Financial Institutions!

Not Tax-Payers Money! Tell Them, "The Survival of the Fittest Applies Too!"

REMEMBER Ye History, Ye Jury & Everybody’s Biz:

The FEDERAL RESERVE (a Robber Baron Bank SYSTEM, not Secular!), was Created on HASTE on Christmas-Eve 1913! The Federal Reserve is Contrary to the U.S. Constitution that Lets CONGRESS, not Federal Reserve’ to Create Money! Please see Quasi Fed Reserve Robber Baron's SYSTEM with Parachutes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

Hark Democrat Party, Do not Make Haste; else waist!

Do Not Go For That 'REPUBliCAN" ROBBER-BARON & CAPTAINS of INDUSTRY" Con Job & Satanic trick , word NOW! NOW NOW!NOW!

No No No It Could Wait!!!!!!!!!! DO-NOT RUSH!

IT's Not an E-M=E=R=G=E-N-C-Y!!!!

IT's Not an E-M=E=R=G=E-N-C-Y!!!!

IT's Not an E-M=E=R=G=E-N-C-Y!!!!

VOTE: NO NO NO Bail-Out NOW! It Could Wait January 2009, not 2008!

VOTE: NO NO NO Bail-Out NOW! It Could Wait January 2009, not 2008!

VOTE: NO NO NO Bail-Out NOW! It Could Waite January 2009, not 2008!

---

The Federal so called CREDIt-System' Exageraters, is a FEDERAL RESERVER (tantamount to an ERON trick via the Chairman ben Bernanki (Bush Evangelical Fronts) & the U.S. Treasury Polson [Bush Evangelical Fronts!)

ScHAME McCain! ScSHAME Trying To Get-out of thgis F R i D A Y's Debate, via Rush to Bail-out his "FRIENDS"! (not Our Friends!)!!!!! Tryin to Get Out of a one to one genuine (religio Free) Debate!!!

WAiT for The Bail, if any, AFTER the E L E C T i O N!

Where Are Ye EVANGELiCALS?? Rick Warren, Robertson, Hagee, Huckabees et al???? We Are Waiting. STOP HiDiNg Evangelicals etc.!

W A R N I N G: Do Not Fall fot the "TELL A BiG LIE" TRick [a Political Strategy!]

Thank-A-ScHame!

Agathodaimon, you are apparently negatively religion obsessed and cannot converse without expressing your dislike and suspicions. Poor, sad Agathodaimon (and I say that entirely based on the the content of your posts and without a religious prop).

Medically speaking you were once nothing more than a fertilized ova. It is a reality for every living human. You did not get to where you are in life without passing through that apparently insignificant yet crucial stage.

Please think.

Anon-

Now I'm not only out of my senses, but I am sad. Pretty neat trick that you know so much about me. You probably have a USB OUIJA board mouse pad to be able to so accurately know my state of mind. I didn't see any medically based arguments. Is a fertilized ova human or not? If so, one what basis to you make this determination? Not medical - unless all fertilized ova are human - if so then god is the most prolific abortionist of all. How do you square the fact that more spontaneous abortions [miscarriages] happen than are ever performed by any doctor. Should we try to figure out a way to ban the deity for performing his ad hoc abortions? I would like to see the number of abortions performed reduced, and the only proven way of doing this is through sex education and contraception. How to you feel about these? Your other comments about a "material obsessed world" leads me to suspect that you are in fact one of the religiously anti-abortion crowd. As much fun as this has been, I need to sign off for the night, and make sure the OUIJA board is still functioning.

Sad Agathodaimon, now you have me theologically motivated when the depth of my argument against abortion is medically based and if I err, it is on the side of life.

Medical knowledge and your eyes do not lie.

Why not attempt to be honest and say abortion is a necessary evil and a convenience in a material obsessed world.

Don't you know that women who choose a quick and easy abortion believe they can painlessly wash their pregnancy away but are often haunted by the child whose life was ended and experience the grief and depression of loss.

anon-

My senses are just fine - you display the very hysteria that I am talking about. You choose to believe that a fertilized ova is a human being, I choose not to. Your definition of viability is not even close to what I'm talking about, and you know it - just another straw-man. No one - anti or pro abortion is advocating that post partum children be murdered. The line between in-utero viablilty and non-viability can be hard to define. You didn't even address my other points - you clearly believe that abortion = murder at all times and places - fine, that is your right. Mine is to disagree with you. I don't want your purely theological position forced down my throat because of an unsupported theological view of what a human being is.

Poor Agathodaimon, gather your senses. You are the hysteric throwing any and every hackneyed argument you know at me-

For instance you say

"The view that a non-viable fetus is a human being is a theological one."

VIABLE means capable of existence and development as an independent unit

At what age does a child really reach independence? Are you saying any child still dependent on a parent is not human?

and

If you have seen the results of an abortion you know that "clump of cells" met a violent death. Please think.

anon-

I have seen many pictures like this. I don't believe that abortion is a good option, but it must remain an option. The view that a non-viable fetus is a human being is a theological one. The bible does not address the issue of abortion. The idea that a fertilized ova is a human being is absurd. The folks who bring us the anti-abortion hysteria are usually the same ones who want to interfer with sex education and contraception. Both of which have been shown to reduce the number of abortions. If the anti-abortion people were really concerned about fertilized ova, they should be a the forefront of preventing unwanted pregnancies, but sadly, they are not.

"If you truly believed that abortion was equivalent to bashing out the brains of 1 week old"

Here, naive and foolish Agathodaimon, take a look:

http://anti-abortion.info/pictures.php

Tonio,
the definition of murder is: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Killing an intruder is not unlawful, and neither is an abortion. If you truly believed that abortion was equivalent to bashing out the brains of 1 week old, then any measures would be acceptable to prevent such a act. In fact, this is the view taken by people who bomb abortion clinics and really murder doctors who perform abortions. There is no biblical support for viewing an abortion as equal to murder, and the penalties in the OT for a miscarriage caused by violence is very different from causing the death of the mother. For whatever reason, abortion has become the cause celebre for the Religious Right in their front lines of the culture wars - everything evil flows from abortion.

Susan Jacoby calls pro-life beliefs-

"the heartless religious fanaticism of right-wing Republicans"

But the fetal heart begins beating as early as the 5th week after the LMP and the vast vast majority of abortions occur after the fetus has a beating heart. So it is easy to ascertain which belief is heartless.

MURDER is a legal judgement. I think you're all intending to say "killing".

Karen,

What is your position on IVF? It inevitably produces excess embryos that are eventually discarded. Would you say that couples who bear children via IVF are murderers? Would you say that the state must step in and find homes (i.e. wombs) for the frozen embryos?

If you don't think abortion is murder--but that it belongs to a gray realm of something that is undesirable but sometimes necessary--what you are then talking about is legality.

Susan, while I agree with your assessment of Paul Bradford's comment, I disagree with your point above. One can hold that abortion is murder and also hold that criminalizing abortion would be wrong. Similarly, one can hold that taking an assailant's life in defense of one's family is murder, but still preferable to letting the assailant take many lives. I'm not comparing abortion with self-defense, obviously. I'm simply trying to give some detail to the gray realm that you described, where any available answer to a moral dilemma causes some degree of harm no matter what one does. The legality of abortion is one such dilemma - criminalizing abortion would cause harm to mothers and doctors while saving few fetuses, if any.

When someone makes a decision to stop the beating of a human heart by force- it is called MURDER.

Susan Jacoby thinks abortion is "undesirable but sometimes necessary." Of course she can't and won't actually debate her position. But I know most murderers will whole-heartedly agree with her.

"When I say that there is no point in arguing about whether abortion is or is not murder, I am simply stating a fact. There is no moral common ground between the two positions. The social question is whether we turn a moral conflict into a legal mandate. As many of you have pointed out, no law forces any woman to have an abortion. But what the religious right wants to do is force all women to bear unwanted children under all circumstances."

This analysis muddies the waters. The lack of common ground represents a difference in priority claims. The pro-life claim priority for a fertilized egg, while the pro-choice claim priority for the woman in whom a fertilized egg resides. Since the grounds of the two arguments differ, productive debate is precluded.

I agree that it is pointless to disucss the morality of abortion. The pro-life, so-called Christians call you a "baby-killer" for proposing a point of view, even if you have never had an abortion or been a part of any decisions to have an aboriton, much less perform them.

And then what about "Anonymous" urging women to keep semen out of their wombs? Isn't this extreme nastiness exactly what "pro-choice is all about", so that ugly and controlling people like that do not ever become the official womb police and semen police?

More religious mania...

Pills to arouse and pills to abort so where are the pills to eliminate the sex drive?

Who needs them you say? Catholic priests, teenagers, young adults and Muslim husbands.

Of course, "auditioning your finger puppets"
is a lot cheaper and safer.

I'm replying to Paul Bradford's thoughtful comment, because I think the issue he raises--morality vs. legality--is an important one. As a society, the conversation we are having is not about morality but about whether certain people's moral views should be written into law. If you actually think that abortion is murder, than the reasons why you want abortion outlawed are clear. If you don't think abortion is murder--but that it belongs to a gray realm of something that is undesirable but sometimes necessary--what you are then talking about is legality. In any society, there are many, many acts that are immoral but not illegal (and, I think, vice-versa). For example, I think that emotional child abuse is immoral--the sort of parental abuse in which children are constantly called stupid and worthless. But no society is ever going to step in and outlaw what a parent may say to his or her child--however morally repellent the parent's behavior may be.

When I say that there is no point in arguing about whether abortion is or is not murder, I am simply stating a fact. There is no moral common ground between the two positions. The social question is whether we turn a moral conflict into a legal mandate. As many of you have pointed out, no law forces any woman to have an abortion. But what the religious right wants to do is force all women to bear unwanted children under all circumstances.

Cleo wants us to-

"Just keep your hands off my womb."

Cleo- its more important for you to keep semen out of your womb. If you are not diligent in this: your womb may become home for an individual human being and you will be responsible for that life for the rest of yours.

There's nothing to discuss. If Fundies and Catholics don't want abortions they don't have to have them. No one's going to force them. Just keep your hands off my womb.

"I am not going to argue about the morality or immorality of abortion: there is absolutely no way to discuss the subject with anyone who believes that abortion is murder (and there is no way for anyone who believes that abortion is murder to discuss the subject with me)."

Susan Jacoby-

You remind me of the truth in the saying:

"There’s no fool like an old fool."

Harold,
an just where does "God's Word" explicitly condemn abortion? St. Augustine believe "ensoulment" occured when the fetus quickens - i.e. can be perceived to move by the mother. With so many spontaneous abortions [i.e. miscarriages] occuring, if "ensoulement" really occurs with fertilization, the deity is the biggest abortionist of all, and all these ensouled fetuses are burning in hell. Nice deity.

Drew:

On the contrary, human reality is a ‘being’ with human consciousness, authentic and born with inert faculty to distinguish what is good and evil with a free will to chose morally correct life or not. Islam is all embracing mode of life and it prescribes rules of social behaviour, ethical application and functioning of laws. It teaches belief in the hereafter, “ The best in this world as well as the best in the Hereafter”. It not only praises the good and condemns the evils but also provides rewards and sanctions, and this is basis of Islamic morality. Ethical philosophy has always been concerned with the problem of how human actions are to be judged, controlled and guided.

I believe firmly that it is charity and even sacrifice to guide others and to struggle for dispelling the ignorance of fellow-beings without compelling anybody to any belief whatsoever - such is the attitude of Islam. The basic principle of Islam as mentioned in the Quran (2:256), "There is no compulsion in the religion; the right direction is henceforth distinct from error; and who rejecteth the Devil and believeth in Allah (God)hath grasped a firm hand-hold which will never break; Allah is the Hearer, Knower." The Quran enjoins every Muslim to work for the propagation of his faith by word and deed. But he is asked to : “invite mankind to the way of your lord, with wisdom and fair preaching and argue with them in the most kind manner” (16:125). A Muslim is not allowed to use force or violent means to achieve his objectives.

I have always tried to say what I believe to be true because there is nothing common between true and false and the two are totally opposed to each other. If we allow evils of falsehood to reign, it will transcend all evils so it is our responsibility and duty to eradicate it with soft touch of persuasion and never violence.

@Saqib Khan

Do you know why Muslim's follow these laws? Because they live in oppressive theocracies.

Sarah Palin appears to have dubious and duplicitous Christian morals as far her daughter’s sex life for having illicit sex, getting pregnant without getting married and deciding to go ahead with the illegitimate birth is beyond comprehension. Does she really understand Christian morality or is it alright for her children to have illicit sex without condoms or contraceptives because they are anti-abortions or is it alright to give birth to an illegitimate child? Is it ok for her to kill Polar bears and mouse just for the pleasure and fun of it? Either she has little grasp of Christian morals or she is a hypocrite as along she goes on Sunday to church and asks for redemption.

It is so ironic and pugnacious that the so called phoney liberal minded deviants want to indulge in fornication, lewdness, binge drinking, carrying condoms, having illicit sex, gambling, watching pornography and yet claiming to be good Christians is ridiculing Christian morality and its tenets.

I hope that the American people can see the sick joke played on them by the Republican Party in picking a warmonger who would attack Russia on the slightest provocation. Instead they must vote with their brain in the foreheads, forget about Democratic party’s candidate’s colour of skin and vote for the best candidate’s policies on health, social welfare, economic, foreign affairs, climate change, and for the global peace.

I find it astonishing that 99% of Catholics and Protestants claim to be Christians and yet have illicit sex, young girls 10-12 years old have illegitimate children, adults and young drink alcohol until they flat and foul on the roads, streets, take drugs, carry condoms, contraceptives to have sex in every available corner, on a beach, in a park, they go to church with girl/boy friends and make love when they come out, gamble, sodomize, girls walk wearing little clothes, men/ women watch pornography and break almost every tenet of Christianity and indulge in sins. There is neither religious morality nor family ethics are left in Christians homes as every one marriage in four is ending in a divorce.

And yet they consider Muslims as people of medieval ages and make mockery because 99.9999% of them pray to God five times a day with utmost humility, do not touch alcohol, womanize, gamble, fast for thirty days in Ramadan, do not sodomize, Muslim girls do not go out wearing little clothes but wear modest clothes and Muslims observe tenets of Islam as given to them by the Lord Allah/God. 99.9999% do not watch pornography, read lewd literature, make love in public, as these are considered sins, and they try to lead a life of piety, purity and humility.

It is mendacious, perfidious and salacious to label every terrorist who commits horrible crime as a Muslim when 1.87 billion Muslims are peace loving and wish to live in harmony with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and peoples of every race and creed. Please give some credit to Muslims where it is due and do not demonize 1.87 billion for the crimes committed by misguided few. Muslims do not blame every Christian in the world for the crimes committed by President G W Bush against the Muslims killing over one million in Iraq and Afghanistan and by Adolph Hitler against the Jews.

GOD teaches abortion is a violation of His law and I believe Him.

The vast majority of fertilized eggs fail to imbed in the uterine lining and are expelled during menstruation without the mother being aware of what is going on at all.

This is an outrage!!! What this means is that the vast majority of Americans live and die without any record of their lives having even taken place! The only solution is for the government law enforcement offices to collect the menstrual blood of every adult woman, every month, and examine it to determine whether or not the body of an American is contained within. If so, birth and death certificates can be issued, and criminal proceedings can be initiated if there is any evidence of foul play. Also, new census methods would have to be developed in order to account for all the American citizens that are currently falling through the cracks so that Congressional representation can be adjusted.

Oh There Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist,

First things first!! How can we move on to other topics concerning human/fetal/women's rights when your religion gives women almost no rights and treats them like fodder for the male species???

Answer the basic questions about the Islamic treatment of women and then your commentaries might have some value.

If you think abortion is an abomination, DON'T HAVE ONE!!!!
I am tired of people acting like pro-choice is the opposite of pro-life. The opposite of pro-life is pro-death. Roe v. Wade doesn't require women to have abortions, it allows them to.
The most effective thing one can do about abortion is to educate people on birth control and responsible behavior. The number of accidental pregnancies in America is staggering.

"Abortion boils down to one simple question, when does human life begin?

And one paramount law:

Thou Shalt Not Kill"

Wars are legal. Capital punishment is legal. I don't see a lot of conservative Christians campaigning against war or capital punishment. If anything, it's the opposite.

*** I am not going to argue about the morality or immorality of abortion: there is absolutely no way to discuss the subject with anyone who believes that abortion is murder (and there is no way for anyone who believes that abortion is murder to discuss the subject with me). ***

From my perspective, this is the attitude that has to change. As long as one half of the people are unable to talk to the other half we're trapped in an intractable culture war.

Here's what I want: I want to live in a society where women choose to keep their babies. I don't want to live in a society where women are forced to keep their babies and I don't want to live in a society where women choose to abort their babies.

Every discussion I've heard about the morality issue is actually a discussion about legality. Can a woman abort a fetus with genetic abnormalities? Can a woman abort a fetus if she was raped? Can a woman abort a fetus at a certian level of development? We ask 'can' (which is about legality) rather than 'should' (which is about morality) because we simply don't trust women to make moral decisions -- we don't even EXPECT women to make moral decision. The more we rely, as a society, on legality the less we'll be able to count of morality.

The very people who might (in a saner world) be most able to encourage morality are attempting to enforce legality. Those who understand human nature know that you can't persuade people and compel them at the same time. If you want to reduce abortions, the first thing you need to do is gain the trust of those who have the power to decide about abortions (the women themselves).

If we could learn to trust each other, we could learn to talk to each other; and if we could talk to each other we might start moving toward some peace in this country.

Susan,

The equal protection clause? Does that include women? Do women get to make decisions about their own bodies as men do? Or is the clause just for men, sperm, and the like?

Susan Jacoby, "Finally, I wonder what John McCain's reaction would be if his daughter were raped and discovered that she was pregnant."

I am not too sure what the reaction of McCain would be, but some possible responses from moi a religious sort too....

It is God"s will.

It is the neo immaculate conception.

The embryo is innocent of any wrong doing.

All embryos are born in sin and should be allowed a chance to repent, to atone in letting them live.

Susan Jacoby, "Embryonic stem cell research (which McCain supported before he sold his soul to the Christian right) is, in this view, just another form of murder.."

We shall endeavour to have have very, very, very tiny graveyards that can only be seen under a microspope for murdered microspopic eggs and sperms with full funeral service for the dead.

Rest assured that we the religious sorts are now pursuing the formulation and enforcement of a international Convention on the Rights of Embryos. in the United Nations. That would cover the right to life of the embryo, the right of choice of the embryo, the right to pursuit of happiness of the embryo etc etc etc as one of the additional global human rights convention to cover all forms of human life as designated and defined by us. We only have human rights conventions for man, women, child, migrant workers, refugees etc thus far.

Absurdum ad infinitum.

Cheers,

J the animalkind who evolved into personkind and with soul and spirit too.

Abortion boils down to one simple question, when does human life begin?

And one paramount law:

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Added considerations:

The soul (if it exists) separates personkind from the animalkind. If personkind starts at conception then said soul is present at said conception. Aborting/murdering i.e. denying nourishment to or poisoning this body and soul kills the body but not the soul. The RCC says the aborted soul goes to limbo. What rubbish!! The souls from aborted bodies definitely would go to Heaven (if it exists) as these spirits would be perfectly pure.

Do said souls require the future ability to think? To be able to know right from wrong? Do the souls of mentally disabled fetuses, have this ability? Do they then have souls or not? Are they to be considered personkind or only animalkind?

Are our mentally disabled brothers and sisters to be considered animals? Have our senior citizens with dementia or Alzheimers lost their souls and now to be considered animals?

Or maybe we should protect all of our brothers and sisters at every stage of their lives without considering the state of their souls??