Obama and Abortion

Welcome back Hood, it was kinda boring without you. This week was kinda quick for me as well (just got back from an amazing weekend in Serenbe, GA - great little B&B down there). Hmmm... where too start... Might as well start at the beginning and work my way through...

In an all-too-typical move, enlighten and freethought have claimed victory against all people of faith simply because someone did not respond to their post within a day.

We never declared victory. We just kept the thread alive.

I'll even go as far to say I probably won't respond to most of your "questions" or "assertions" or whatever you call them. Quite simply, it's like trying to "Smell the color nine".

Why not? Perhaps answering our questions might give you a different perspective on the issue. Have you even entertained the questions posed? Perhaps you need to approach the issue with an open-mind, not from an emotional context? The questions we have asked have been honest and rational. I don't see why you can't answer them. To toss out statements and bury your head in the sand anytime someone attempts to debate that point is somewhat childish.

(BTW - "Smell the Color Nine", a christian pop song... like I wasn't going to google that reference, jeeze..)

What I will say is that I'd like to welcome poppers to the discussion. He/she has quickly picked up on the tactics used on this board - especially if it comes to religion and/or abortion. Those tactics are to quickly attempt to discredit the poster or any references used and then turn the subject to any number of random arguments to put the original poster in a mode of addressing issues outside the scope of what he/she was intending to convey.

Tactics? Hood, come on. You are the one who posted an article about Obama's stance on Abortion. The op/ed was written by an Evangelical Christian. You should not have been surprised that it would not have been reviewed thoroughly!! You brought up the op/ed about Obama, I countered with the facts regarding the author of the op/ed. How is religion being outside the scope of this discussion, when it is the Evangelical Christian crowd that is pushing the issue.

Sorry, guys, not falling into that trap.

Sorry, no traps - just a rational debate.

I will say this, though, I did not bring religion into this discussion, you did. I simply pointed out how Obama's views on abortion are more liberal than many of his Democratic peers.

Sorry, but refer to my previous points. You posted a biased article by an evangelical christian. You opened the religious door amigo...

And the whole point against abortion - taking religion completely out - is why is one baby born 10 weeks premature considered a baby and another one aborted at the same time considered a fetus (glob of tissue)?

Please site your statistics regarding late term abortion. When I last checked it made up only .08 percent of US based abortions (generally due to sever genetic or medical complications). So, your example is hardly a typical case. Your point about abortion and mine are very different.

I don't presume to tell anyone what to do with their bodies. You for some reason believe you have the moral authority to do just that.

There is also no denying that, short of an untimely death due to miscarriage or death/injury to mother, every glob of tissue would be born as a person. Abortion denies that inalienable right to life.

Inalienable right to life? What about the 25000 stillborn deaths each year? Who do we lock up for that? And why is this right to life not observed for cancer cells and viral infections? How about people on death row? What about their right to life? Who made up this so called right?

I'll also say this, I do no believe that I have ever judged anyone on this board.

Hmph.. didn't you just label us anarchists? Isn't that just a little judgmental?

I have been consistent in my views that I am not God. I do not get to make the decision between HEaven and Hell, so I would never tell anyone where they're going.

Wait, so you want to impose your views on the rest of the Nation - but you are not god? You want to have the moral authority to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies - but you are not god?? You might not tell anyone where they are going, but you don't hesitate telling them what they can do /can't do with their body.... Interesting....

I can tell you what I believe the Bible says on the subject, but ultimately, that is something between you and the Creator.

Hold on... back up... I thought you were attempting to keep religion out of this thread? But, since you brought it up, from my readings - the bible appears to be very pro-abortion. Take a look at Numbers chapter 5 or read Hosea chapter 9. Miscarriages and abortions were all the rage. What exactly do you get out of the book - that whole "thou shalt not kill". Heh, kinda hypocritical coming from the "divine" being who killed all the firstborn of Egypt.

And finally, I'll keep singing this song. It never gets old to me. You don't like the song, turn off the radio. I'm sure people were tired of hearing the anti-slavery song and the pro-Civil rights song. Yet, they were still worth singing until a wrong was made right.

Ok, keep it going. But why not present facts instead of putting your head in the sand? Sing all you want - but singing normally doesn't win intellectual debates. If your argument doesn't hold water, you might as well put your fingers in your ears and sing all you want.

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
~ Lucretius, De Rerum Natura

Well welcome back from middle earth.

I thought Free explained it very nicely concerning the religion thing. We were not celebrating, we actually missed you. If you gave up on ranting about abortion we would be just as dismayed...to quote Will Shakespear: "This above all, to thine own self be true."

That said, you are still the one who brought religion into the discussion...and like I have said over and over and over; go ahead and believe in the infallible word of the bible..it is your right. What is not within your rights or anyones elses is to religate Free and I to second class citizenship because we happen not to agree with you.

You and the others have no right to preach to me and frankly, I for once would like to hear some reasoning around what YOU believe without the use of the good book and Jesus.

You say you are against abortion for moral reasons but those reasons are based not on intellectual means but reliance on religion. That, of course, is only my opinion and I truly do enjoy our little sessions. I would miss you if you went the way of Axel.

Peace out!

There's a false assumption that you're making and that is that only people of faith oppose abortion. And the correlary to that assumption is that people have developed their views solely on their religious beliefs.

Yes, my Christian beliefs helped to form my sense of right and wrong. It's what teaches me to love my neighbor, protect the environment and stand up for the oppressed among other things.

To assume that a person that does not believe in the Bible or God must by default favor abortion is just not accurate.

That being said, my original post simply referenced an article about abortion and Obama. I asked about the potential political fallout over his extreme views on the subject. The article only referenced religion once and that was in context of another Democrat that was pro-life.

For one thing, I have mentioned Obamas opposition to legislation that would protect an infant that was born alive during an attempted abortion. Obama feels it is OK to place the baby on an operating table and finish the job. Even by your own arguments, once the baby is out and breathing, it is a person.

Scientifically, how does one that favors abortion explain why one fetus delivered early at 30 weeks is somehow more of a baby than a baby aborted at 30 weeks?

Let me use one of your obscure techniques - the "what if". Suppose a 30 year-old is diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor and is given 30 days to live. On day 29, a robber shoots and kills the man. Should the robber be charged with murder? I mean the man didn't have a hope of life anyway. He was just a financial and emotional burden to his family - right?

Same thing with a baby, folks. You kill the baby and you have denied that baby the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that he/she would have enjoyed except for the abortionist actions.

No Bible. No God. No Jesus. Just simple logic - the clump of cells as you call it is life - human life. To destroy it is to destroy human life and all the possibilities that come with it.

Abortion is about choice. The choice to exercise responsibility in making sexual decisions. The majority of abortions are a result of convenience. The parties involved engage in irresponsible behavior. They do nothing to prevent the pregnancy from occurring. The child is then forced to pay the ultimate price.

My point is this - given Obama's views on abortion that are exteme even by democratic standards- are you OK voting for him. The polls indicate that more Americans are opposed to abortion under any circumstances. The majority favor the usual rape, incest, LIFE of the mother, but do not favor just because you're irresponsible.

We don't want innocent people to pay for other's irresponsible behavior whether that is driving drunk or anything else. Why should expect the innocent child to pay for his/her parents irresponsible behavior - even when it was that same irresponsible bahvior that gives life?

I've been making an intellectual argument all along - you just choose to ignore it and focus on what you know to be my Christian beliefs. Again, as I said earlier, to believe that only the religious oppose abortion is not accurate. Just like I do not assume that all religious people share my sentiments.

I've tried not to be preachy on this board and have said many times that I would not profess to know where you will spend the after-life.

I believe your post says it all. Your Christian upbringing taught you right from wrong. Good.

I don't want to pay for the legislatures irresponsible behaivor but now I will be forced to pay for ultrasounds performed on woman who DO NOT WANT them all because the governor thinks it will stop someone from having an abortion. Some of the fools were truly wanting to force the woman to watch the ultrasound...I guess clockwork orange style. Now that's reasonable.

Again, please re-read Frees 1st response to you as his reasoning concerning your injection of religion is mine. Your arguement are not intellectual when it comes to abortion...they are emotional. If reason and intelligence ruled you would have to admit that the world is DREADFULLY over populated and the Earth cannot continue to support the people that are already here.

Zero population growth would be my preference but of course there is always the chance that the Rapture will occur thus relieving the Earth of the extra burden of excess people.

We all know how you feel about abortion. Bet you are voting for McPain?

Freethought and Enlighten, direct responses to the original topic, and showing a little respect for another's point of view, is the point of message board forum threads. Your responses can seem more appropriate for starting your own topic, like a "Hoodornament makes me crazy!" thread.

For example, try responding to assertions and questions in a focused manner:

Hood: No wonder Obama was voted most liberal Senator. He's more liberal than most Democrats when it comes to abortion.

Sample Response: Cite the references naming Obama most liberal senator. I don’t think being pro-choice makes him more liberal than anyone else, nor does it make him wrong. I believe a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy as long as it is legal and safe.

Hood: It was encouraging to read that younger Americans are more and more against abortion with the exception of rape, incest and LIFE of mother. Notice I emphasized LIFE not HEALTH. These three exclsuions amount to maybe 5% of all abortions.

Sample Response: Where did you get those statistics? Back that up.

Hood: The other 95% is the most horrific form of birth control that exists. As a matter of fact, the very phrase "birth control" is not accurate - condoms, the pill, etc... are "conception control" - used to prevent conception. Abortion is birth control - used to prevent the birth of an otherwise healthy baby.

Sample Response: By calling them “horrific”, you seem to be condemning those who had the procedure. That’s not right or fair because society has accepted it. My proof is that Congress has not gotten enough pressure to outlaw it and the court decision still stands after many years. I don’t agree that it is horrific. Your point about “birth control” and “conception control” is interesting and I can agree with it, except for your presumption of a healthy baby.

Hood: Also, keep in mind that the legal aspect of abortion in America and western culture for centuries was very anti-abortion.

Sample Response: What about the lack of representation for women in those “good old days”? Don’t know where you get that notion from, but it was pre-suffrage I believe.

Hood: Only when liberal judges decided to legislate from the bench in Roe v Wade, did we get the protection of abortion. Hopefully, that is a 35 year old trend that can be quickly and permanently reversed.

Sample Response: Blaming “Liberal” judges, as if were a slur, is misdirected anger, I think. Legislation from the bench is a symptom of a lack of political courage or will on the part of Congress and you will have a lot of work to do to reverse that trend. Good luck!

Hood: Any Obama supporters out there turned off by this revelation?

Sample Response: I am not sure who I will vote for, Obama or Clinton, but it doesn’t turn me off.

Hood: Any other comments (even cock-fighting analogies are welcome)?

Sample Response: Well, when it comes to abortion, Hood, you sound as mad as a wet hen. Just teasing, trying to spur you on. LOL!

A little etiquette can go a long way in public discourse folks, be nice!

BTW Hood, I am gender advantaged. Male.

Now that you have explained your gender advantage, please explain how you have a dog in the abortion fight? Oh right, you have an OPINION!

Please don't preach etiquette to me. I find it downright rude to come in here and try to put other people down simply because you don't like their religion or lack thereof. That really is your point.

You are a man and you are a christian and that makes you right? Right?

The people who have been kicked out of here for their RUDE and OBNOXIOUS behavior have been, totally 100% Christian. What does that tell you? Should we draw the conclusion that all christians are obnoxious and can only throw insults instead of actually debating a subject on its merits.

Well let me throw in one more comment and see what comes of it.

I truly KNOW that LIFE is not obtained until the first breath is drawn. If you do not breathe, you do not live. Many native americans did not even name their children until a year had passed. What proof do any of you have that a glob of cells or even a fetus has been endowed with a Spirit? Many traditions hold that the Spirit enters the body when the first breath is drawn.

As far as the absurb assertion that abortion is used as birth control...well I can only say that I have known many women who have had abortions for various reasons. Not one of them did so as a means of "birth control."

Poppers, you are welcome to debate but don't throw insults and think that either Free or myself are going to back off. Don't tell me what to say, think, feel, or do. This is America.

Here we are debating abortion again when the air and water and soil are so polluted that the already born may not be able to survive on this planet if the far right has their way. Of course, that is totally another subject so please let me issue a preemptive apology.

Have a great day...

Where exactly were Enlighten and I being unpleasant? Also, coming in and telling others how to debate within such threads is mildly obnoxious.

Hood has already stated "I'll even go as far to say I probably won't respond to most of your "questions" or "assertions" or whatever you call them" in an attempt to make this dialog one sided. If hood didn't want the op/ed criticized, he should not have posted it.

To have a free flowing exchange of opinions and ideas, you can't box them up in a form letter. We have no need for a Ms. Manners of the message board or the thread police, so please don't attempt to put yourself in that position.

Feel free to join the conversation, but don't dictate how posts should be structured - its simply pretentious.

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
~ Lucretius, De Rerum Natura

Don't expect the others to follow suit. They'd prefer to play me up as a right-wing Christian who should have no voice in the public arena because it is my religion that helps formulate my views.

However, I respect your approach to discourse. Not sure if these are actually your views or just your attempt to show the others what it means to actually address the topic and not go off on a tangent.

With that said, here is my reply:

1) Obama's Liberal Ranking - based upon vote rankings during 2007 by the National Journal and widely reported in January of 2008. The Op/Ed in the Washington Post that I linked to cited other Democrats views on specifically late-term abortions. As mentioned over and over again, Obama supports such things as partial-birth abortions (these are abortions done on otherwise viable babies whereas the baby is partially delivered into the birth canal where the abortionist then punctures his skull with scissors and sucks out the brains before delivering the remaining dead body). Granted, percentage wise, this type is small, but it still happens and Obama favors it. Obama also favors allowing a baby born alive due to a botched abortion attempt to be left for dead without care. Again, a small percentage, but I'll let the voters decide if this is the character of the person you want to be President.

2) Younger Americans - Again, the Op/Ed references that fact, but I have read NY Times/CBS polls stating the same thing and other articles that the younger generation is not as in favor of abortion on demand as it has in the past.

3) "Horrific" - yes, I admit that this description is biased. It is not a condemnation of those that have had this procedure. The term was used in reference to abortion as a form of birth control. Contraceptives, the pill, etc... are generally regarded as birth control, but they are not - they are actually to prevent conception. Once conception occurs, there is life. Abortion is the termination of that life. Abortion may not seem horrific 3 weeks after conception. However, at 10 weeks, per the "What to Expect When You're Expecting" book:

By the 10th week, the embryo is known as a fetus. The face has a human profile, and all of the major organs have formed. It is now about 4 inches long, and weighs about one ounce. The heartbeat can now be heard with a Doppler stethoscope and can also be easily seen on ultrasound examination. The kidneys have begun to secrete urine, which partly makes up the amniotic fluid around the baby. Teeth buds are present in the gums.

You abort a 10 week old fetus and you have stopped a beating heart. The doctors must account for all of the arms and legs and other body parts. Yes, I'd call that horrific.

4) Legal aspect of abortion - I think women gained the right to vote in 1920. Also, per NY Times/CBS poll, men favored abortion being "Generally available" more than women. To try to portray this issue of men subjecting their will upon women is not accurate. You did not say so, but others have - which is basically the "vagina" argument - you don't have one, you can't talk about abortion. That is wrong, too. It takes two to tango and the father's rights are not acknowledged in abortion cases.

5) Liberal judges - it is not a slur, but a fair characterization of that Supreme Court. Conservative judges have legislated from the bench as well. My opinion is that this court way over-reached it's authority in Roe v Wade. I agree with you on the political courage thing, though. Congress abdicated it's responsibility (not the first time and won't be the last). They could solve this legislating when life begins, but they won't.

6) Turn off - just putting information out there for consideration.

7) Cockfighting - that's nothing to crow about. LOL2!

BTW, I have never divulged my gender on this board because I do not believe it relevant. There are those that are convinced I'm one or the other. Would my opinions on abortion be lessesned if I were a man? Would my thoughts on basketball or Rock concerts be lessened if I were a woman?

** THe rest of this post is directed at other posts during the course of this debate**
I'll go back to my questions (and pose a few new ones):

1) What makes one 20 week fetus a baby and another a clump of cells to be aborted? I believe the right percentage is closer to 1.4 percent of abortions done after 20 weeks, but what does that matter? The only difference between the two is that one has parents that want him and the other doesn't.
2) Short of natural death by miscarriage or death by trauma due to car accident etc..., every aborted fetus would become a baby. Do you disagree?
3) World overpopulation - why stop there? If the world is grossly overpopulated, why don't we get rid of the real leeches of society. Start with the unemployed. Move to the drug dealers and drug users. Retirees or just everyone over a certain age? Starting to sound like "Logan's Run" more and more.
4) Death row - the people on death row knew the consequences of their actions when they did it. They made a "choice". Now, I would gladly trade the lives of 3000 + death row inmates (of which 42 were executed last year) for the million plus innocent babies executed year.

We have a crisi in AMerica and it is a responsibility crisis. It is a crisis that tells a CEO it's OK to take a multi-million dollar bonus while driving your company bankrupt; it's a crisis that tells a Secty. of Defense he can mismanage a war and not get fired; it's a crisis that tells millions of Americans each year that they can eat their way to obesity, but it's not their fault; AND it's a crisis that tells boys and girls that's it's OK to have sex, it feels good and if you end up pregnant and don't want to be - no worries, we'll just cut that right out.

The whole issue with the ultrasounds in SC is to provide more information and give the person time to contemplate. Abortion providers don't want this because it cuts into their bottom line. No other medical procedure could be performed on a minor on the spot and without parental notification, but abortion can.

And again, notice I did not say "God" or "Bible" once.

You just can't help yourself can you.

1) What makes one 20 week fetus a baby and another a clump of cells to be aborted? I believe the right percentage is closer to 1.4 percent of abortions done after 20 weeks, but what does that matter? The only difference between the two is that one has parents that want him and the other doesn't.

Answer: Very few abortion occur at 20 weeks and when performed at that stage of pregnancy are usually for medical reasons. I had a friend once who discovered that her fetus had no brain...would die immediately after or during birth. That is more likely the senerio for any abortion performed after 12 weeks.

2) Short of natural death by miscarriage or death by trauma due to car accident etc..., every aborted fetus would become a baby. Do you disagree?

Nope, can't disagree but do have to ask what your point is? Of course you forgot to add death by father punching mother in stomach during pregnancy...that has happened too. (sorry if this is too graphic but it has happened about as often as a doctor sucks a baby's brains out of its head and then crushes it skull as the blood and guts...sorry, I digress)

3) World overpopulation - why stop there? If the world is grossly overpopulated, why don't we get rid of the real leeches of society. Start with the unemployed. Move to the drug dealers and drug users. Retirees or just everyone over a certain age? Starting to sound like "Logan's Run" more and more.

Sorry Hood, I don't want to play God, but, If I could I would get rid of a whole lot of people but the unemployed would not be amongst them. My list would begin with White male republicans starting with old GW. Drug dealers and users would not make my list either...Fundamentalist bigots would like the Arian Church of Christ people. I like Old People so they would get to stay. Logan's Run? Well you know you just can't trust anyone over thirty! (Crap that means I have to go!)

4) Death row - the people on death row knew the consequences of their actions when they did it. They made a "choice". Now, I would gladly trade the lives of 3000 + death row inmates (of which 42 were executed last year) for the million plus innocent babies executed year.

Who is executing babies? The Chinese need to stop that! There you go again with an emotional response. You have still failed to prove that the fetus is a baby. IMO if it ain't viable outside the womb then it is not a baby.

We have enough little miracles running around already.

I do agree with you whole heartedly concerning the lack of responsibility being taken by our brave and fearless leaders. Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for the hundreds of thousands of deaths they are responsible for due to their actions. Too bad they were not fetus', then maybe more people would be against this war...oh wait, we are killing Muslims and that's ok, right?

1) Actually, statistically (citing an Alan Guttmacher Institute study) of the abortions performed at 16 weeks gestation or later, generally considered "late-term", less than 3% cited diagnosis of fetal health as the reason. The overwhelming majority of abortions even in the later stages are social reasons. And yet, you still don't answer the question - the difference between the two scenarios is that one child's parents want her and one child's parents do not.

2) You make my point exactly. Other than an untimely death do to miscarriage or trauma, the baby would develop and be born. Abortion denies that inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3) PLaying God? I would submit that you already do. You judge and condemn to death a child because they have the unfortunate circumstance of being born to parents who don't care. So, if we could free up some space, I don't know, by getting rid of the 12 million illegals that are in America now, would you agree to allow the million+ babies to be born? It is interesting that you would keep drug dealers and users, but kill off all the white, male Republicans. That screams of bigotry.

4) Death row - OK besides the fact that the dictionary refers to a baby as a fetus and that many medical journals refer to health of the unborn baby. How about the acknowledgement in #2 above? Does the fetus "evolve" into a baby as he passes through the birth canal? Up until that time, it's just a glob of tissue? How about this - I believe that you are both a woman and a parent - correct? Did you at any time (and remember that you are under oath) EVER refer to the mass of globby tissue in your womb as a "Baby"?

I would also point out that 35 states currently have laws on the books protecting the unborn as it relates to the unlawful killing of an unborn child. So, here is one of those fun "what-if's":

Woman is pregnant, but decides it would be damaging to her figure, so she decides to get an abortion. On the way to the abortion clinic, she stops in for coffee. A robber shoots her in the stomach killing her unborn child. Should that robber be charged with the murder of the unborn child? Wasn't like the mother wanted the kid anyway.

The point is that life is life is life is life. It is not a definition that can mean different things to different people. There are absolutes in life despite what your views of individualism hold. How can a society have respect for life of any living thing if it doesn't respect the most innocent version of itself?

Queue the Law and Order theme....

Charge - Using graphic imagery to sway the opinions of others.

As mentioned over and over again, Obama supports such things as partial-birth abortions (these are abortions done on otherwise viable babies whereas the baby is partially delivered into the birth canal where the abortionist then punctures his skull with scissors and sucks out the brains before delivering the remaining dead body).

You could have easily stated that Obama supports such things as partial-birth abortions. Using graphic imagery is an overextension of your point. - Hence, guilty..

Ok, sorry. I couldn't help myself....

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
~ Lucretius, De Rerum Natura

We do agree, though - At the heart of your objection is the fact that abortion is horrific.

That was the point being discussed was my use of the term "horrific". In context of that discussion, it was necessary to elaborate on why I considered it "horrific".

And that seems to be another point of contention between the Pro-lifers and abortionists. We want the truth to get out there. I describe the procedure and I am accused of using graphic imagery to invoke emotions. I am simply stating the facts - which is what you want.

Pro-abortionists frequently label attempts to shed the true facts of abortion as "mean-spirited" and hateful. If it is a medical procedure to remove a clump of cells, why is everyone so afraid of the truth? Why not have a waiting period for abortions? Why not an ultrasound to confirm that it is "just a lump of tissue"?

Why? Because the truth will hurt the pro-abortion cause, so it must be suppressed at all costs.

Call it graphic. Call it horrific. Call it mean-spirited.

It still remains the truth.

Hood wrote: "But you have nothing more than your beliefs with regards to abortion. You do not believe in a divine being, but assign that theocrisy to the individual."

Hood wrote this after totally misrepresenting Obama's position by claiming he supported partial birth abortion because he refused to vote for the act even though a cursory look at the events would show that Obama demanded an inclusion of exceptions for the health of the woman.

Hood resorts to calling abortion a murder as if both sides agree to that rather than it is his opinion.

Grab governmental power and make all obey huh! Ain't gonna happen

benny

Please give an example of any instance where an abortion would be necesary for the health of the woman.

That's like saying it's justified to murder someone because they got in my way.

daughter of promise

If that is true, all Obama said was to add an exemtion to protect the woman's health. If it never happens, why would the backers not ad that? Could be the whole point of the PB ban was an end to stop all all abortions? Yep!

You wrote: That's like saying it's justified to murder someone because they got in my way.

Isn't that what we do every time we bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan and we know that civilians are about to be murdered!

Benny

I would just like to add that since Roe v Wade we have lost and entire generation. We not only lost millions of innocent babies but all the future children they might have had and all the things they might have done. Look at the world today. People are lovers of self. Right is now becomming wrong and wrong is becomming right. American's worship money and all it can give them. One day soon this economy will collapse as it runs on credit. Many babies are aborted because their living might cost the loss of money. I believe the children we "chose" not to allow to be born would have made a tremendous difference in this world. The more global this world becomes, the more evil it becomes. I remember when a child being molested or murdered was unheard of. Today it is commonplace. Schools teach Evolution and wonder why their seems to be a loss of respect for life. People say they have the right to do things based upon the laws that man has made or changed. There are higher laws that one day we will all answer to. We will answer for the things we did and things we didn't do, but should have. Today we have the "Right to Choose" doing the right thing or the wrong thing.

Too bad momma Cheney did not abort Dick. Would have saved thousand of lives more worth than his.

Benny

I would just like to add that since Roe v Wade we have lost and entire generation. We not only lost millions of innocent babies but all the future children they might have had and all the things they might have done.

This argument is irrational. To account the possibilities of future generations due to abortion a flawed argument. You are making assumptions. The number of abortions are much less than the number of miscarriages by far. Also, if you want to take the argument to a deeper level, any woman who has her menstrual cycle and any male that self gratifies himself is potentially loosing an entire generation of heirs. This is so much like the "Aborted Beethoven" argument that is put forward by anti-women advocates. There is absolutely no basis for this position.

Look at the world today. People are lovers of self. Right is now becomming wrong and wrong is becomming right. American's worship money and all it can give them. One day soon this economy will collapse as it runs on credit.

I agree with some of your argument here, but wrong and right are perceptions. You may believe abortion is wrong, but it does not make it so - hence, your perception is what makes the difference. I can believe that eating corned beef without a side of potatoes is wrong - this does not make it so. It is just my perception.

I believe the children we "chose" not to allow to be born would have made a tremendous difference in this world.

Difference how? They could contribute to the downfall of society. With your argument, we could very easily have the next Hitler, Stalin or Ted Bundy. Think of how many people could potentially be killed / tortured due to the lack of that abortion. This is once again, an invalid argument.

Schools teach Evolution and wonder why their seems to be a loss of respect for life. People say they have the right to do things based upon the laws that man has made or changed.

Evolution is the process how our species got here. How does that effect someone's perception of life? If you want to see something that disrespects human life, look at the laws given in the christian bible.

There are higher laws that one day we will all answer to.

Using Pascal's wager in this twisted manner does not illustrate your point. You believe that one day you will go see your mystical sky god and will have to answer for your "sins". And when it asks you why you did not kill anyone for working on the sabbath - how will you answer? Ahh, thats a law in the book you follow, but somehow neglect. Face it, appealing to some mystical puppet master (that there is no evidence exists) is not a valid argument for your position.

Today we have the "Right to Choose" doing the right thing or the wrong thing.

True, but in your individual case. Why pose your beliefs on the rest of the nation? Your perception is no more right than mine. It is the individual who is in the position to make the decision who holds that right. Not you or I.

Like I have said in previous posts, if you don't like abortion - don't have one. But keep your beliefs off of people who have to make that decision. Who appointed you the "moral authority" ?

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
~ Lucretius, De Rerum Natura

It didn't take long for your bitterness to reveal your Atheistic beliefs. To refer to God as a "Mystical Puppet Master" and the Holy Bible as a "crusty old book" dots the "i's" and crosses the "t's". What's with the Latin ? Are you an attorney or ex Roman Catholic ? Religion is man made. As I previously stated we have "Free Will" (no strings attached). Right or wrong is determined by The Holy Bible (God's Word) or as you refer to it, that "crusty old book". Your argument is not with me or others but with your Creator. It is He who was and is and always will be the "moral authority". Hell is REAL, brother or sister, and you are headed there. We are not promissed tomorrow. If I am wrong and you are right, I have lost nothing. If I am right and you are wrong then what ? The choice is yours. It is your right to choose.

Hell is not real. There is no God. And you are going to die. I have more proof of that than any of your faith based statements.

Sorry, but I am not afraid of your imaginary boogie man!

Benny

PS - We don't rebel from that which never existed - we rebel from man written mythology. May Zeuss save you! I think you are in danger of Hades!

I could not have said it better myself.

God bless!

daughter of promise

You cut yourself short. You certainly could have written that ****** better than it was written.

Benny

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

daughter of promise

Smile :)

It didn't take long for your bitterness to reveal your Atheistic beliefs.

Bitterness.. for a belief structure that believes in war, oppression and a lack of human compassion. How about a belief structure that encourages slavery, murder and child abuse. I'm not bitter, I just find it savage.

To refer to God as a "Mystical Puppet Master" and the Holy Bible as a "crusty old book" dots the "i's" and crosses the "t's".

Ok, my beliefs are definetly atheistic. What is wrong with that. There is no evidence for a higher power, and I don't form my opinions based on group think. Also, stating that the "Holy Bible" is pushing your belief on others. I consider the christian bible as holy as the "Black and Decker guide to Home Wiring".

What's with the Latin ? Are you an attorney or ex Roman Catholic ? Religion is man made.

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum." means "To such heights of evil are men driven by religion." It is definetly a true statement. Look at the Holocaust, the Inquisision and the Crusades. I am neither an attorney or Roman Catholic. I am just a simple man who prefers to look at issues with a rational / logical perspective. What is wrong with that. If something lacks evidence, it is irrational to believe it until creditable evidence is presented. I agree with your statement "Religion is man made", but I take it one step further. God, Zeus, Satan, Allah, Santa Clause, Poseidon, Athena, Thor, Loki, Vahalla, Ragnarok, the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all man made. What evidence do you have of your God that could not be attributed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Is it true you are not an atheist in regards to Zeus? I just take my atheism one step further.

As I previously stated we have "Free Will" (no strings attached).

Free Will is a human concept. Actually, if you believe in the omnicient powers of your deity, how can you believe in free will? If "god" controls everything, knows everything - how does your "free will" out rank your almighty's knowledge. Sorry, but it does not make sense.

Right or wrong is determined by The Holy Bible (God's Word) or as you refer to it, that "crusty old book".

If Right and Wrong were determined by the christian bible, why are there no murders of people who work on sunday? Can you give me an example of charity done by a religious worker that could not be done by a non-believer?

Your argument is not with me or others but with your Creator. It is He who was and is and always will be the "moral authority"

There is absolutely no proof of a creator, so how can I have an argument with such a being? I have a problem with people instilling their archaic beliefs. If the creator doesn't exist, how can it be the moral authority? You may believe that (without evidence mind you...) but it does not make it so.

Hell is REAL, brother or sister, and you are headed there. We are not promissed tomorrow.

Please provide proof of a "Hell". Once again, no evidence.

If I am wrong and you are right, I have lost nothing. If I am right and you are wrong then what ?

Ahh... Pascal's wager. You do understand that argument is flawed in its very definition. Want to know why? Don't worry, I will let you in.
Think about it this way:

1. How many religious institutions have there been through the course of history? Lets say (with the addition of cults, etc) over 500.

2. How many of those religions forbid worshiping false gods - eh, lets say 75% so 375 of them would condemn you to eternal suffering for worshiping a different idol.

3. You are currently worshiping only 1 "god". So you have a 1/375 chance of being right.

Looking at the problem logically, if I were to state there was insufficient evidence for a belief - any understanding deity would accept that explination.

From the other point of view, if you appeared before the wrong god, chances are you would be condemned for worshiping a false diety.

I personally would accept a 50/50 chance vs a 1/375 chance.

This is just the logical point of view. Lets talk about the philosophical. According to your "holy" book - the god of the old testimate is a mean, wrathful god. Does a creature such as this deserve worship? I would rather burn than accept a demented, destructive psychopath as the "king of kings".

The choice is yours. It is your right to choose.

Is it? If there is truely a "god" am I not following it's devine plan (hypothetically)? If it made me in it's own image, how could it sentence me to eternal suffering if I am following it's devine plan?

So, if I read your statements right - the reason to believe is because if I don't I could burn in an aweful place. Please provide proof, if you can. Better yet, here is a good little research project for you. Provide a contemporary source of the existance of the christ figure. Good luck..

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
~ Lucretius, De Rerum Natura

The "holy bible" is the only book that contains God's word? Just curious as you did state thast religion is man made and I had also assumed that you knew the bible was also manmade. Some people are so ready to cast that first stone...

The very premise and promise of this country is that people like Free (atheist) and myself (Spiritual Human Being with her own one on one relationship with God) are allowed to be equal citizens. You and certain other people seem to think it is ok to wave your magical "Book" at him and he should recognize your moral and intellectual superiority. You are right and nothing, and I mean nothing anyone can say will change your mind.

I really don't know what point you are trying to prove. And you are very wrong my friend if you think you will have lost nothing...you loose being in the now and living every single moment. You loose when you pass judgements condemning people to your hell.

You are right about free will and choice...so leave me alone to make my choice and know that I wish you nothing but a wonderful relationship with your book and God. I accept you for what you believe, try extending that same compassion and acceptance towards me (and Free). Walk your talk don't stand on the soap box and preach.

PS I find limiting God to just being "He" is very confining and not in keeping with the All that I know.

Hey Enlighten... I think I scared all the theists away...

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
~ Lucretius, De Rerum Natura

They might all be off worshipping (is that two p's or one?)

It seems to me that any time you put up any logical arguement, they melt. I just watched a video about Oprah and her book club book by Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth. I have read the book and will say that there is not one piece of information in it that you cannot find contained within eastern thought/philosophy. What is the "fundamentalist christian" view of the book. It is the devils work and Oprah is serving the devil. She has denied the one and only true way and now is going to hell.

They leave no room for reason and as far as I am concerned, the biggest "gift" Spirit endowed humanity with is the ability to reason. So they deal with an empty vessel and can only justify their "righteousness" by putting other people down.

Peace to you Free, my fellow American

Yes, I, along with billions of other Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu et al believers are iterally trembling at the overwhelming argument that you have made against religion. Did you hear the slamming of all the doors of churches, synagouges, mosques and temples all over the world who caved to the vast and, might I say, unparalled knowledge of freethought and enlighten.

Perhaps we should worship you.

I hate to admit it, but I am unworthy to respond to your posts. Even though I have a dry, sarcastic wit, there is simply know way to do justice to you two's arrogance of believing that you have somehow dispelled every doctrine known and have run off people of faith on this board with your so-called wisdom.

Certainly another first for our resident anarchist. Yes, notice, I found a new label. Liberal just doesn't cut it any more. You two have proposed a governmental system whereas the individual is accountable only to the individual. This is nothing short of anarchy.

OK - now to get real. The subject of this thread is ABORTION and Barack Obama's left of left beliefs concerning ABORTION. Notice in this post, I did not bring religion into the discussion, you did. My post was specifically aimed at the leading Democratic candidates belief that, among other things, a baby born alive during a botched abortion should be murdered on the operating table - even though the child has now breathed life and even according to your definition - is a human.

My contention is that many are enamored with this man for his ability to relate to people because of his personality and his ability to speak well. It is the classic definition of style over substance - even more so than Bill Clinton. What I want to bring out is how the man stands on the issues. And on the issue of abortion - one that he conveniently avoids even on his web page (when last I looked), he is simply more radical and liberal than even most democrats.

So spare us your pomposity in thinking you have a more enlightened view of the world and knowledge. You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. Nobody has been run off by you two. I like sitting back and watching how off-the-wall you two can be.

It would be entertaining if it wasn't really how you are.

You said, "OK - now to get real. The subject of this thread is ABORTION and Barack Obama's left of left beliefs concerning ABORTION. Notice in this post, I did not bring religion into the discussion, you did. My post was specifically aimed at the leading Democratic candidates belief that, among other things, a baby born alive during a botched abortion should be murdered on the operating table - even though the child has now breathed life and even according to your definition - is a human."
Another example of you putting word (false words) in someone's mouth as if they said it. Obama did not hold this position. You made up your fake belief of Obama's.

Yeah, Hoodie, I like to dig! Get used to it.

Benny

Anarchist! Wow, have to give you credit because that is a new one. Not a valid one but new at least.

I have to agree with Free here, you bring up abortion (again) and use religion to justify your stance and then no one is allowed to refute what you say. No one is supposed to have another opinion or religion because that makes them not as American and worthy as you and yours.

Give me a break.

Just curious: how many babies survive abortion only to be killed on the operating room table? My guess would be NONE. When are you going to start posting the pictures.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee Hood, your Christian country is fading fast because the cornerstone is crumbling.

Off the wall? If you say so but I would like to remind you that I am not the one sitting in judgement of other people nor am I hanging around waiting for Jesus to return and save me. I prefer to be known by my own good works. But thanks for the new title...Liberal was getting so common.

How you "are" would be entertaining too if most of you were not armed. So much for pro-life.

Free, I guess Hood forgot about Axel and Cyberella...they never came back. Frankly, I sort of miss Axel, he really could highlight the fundamentalist pov.

After reading this thread I suspect people like Cyberella and Axel got tired of close-minded rants. The post by Hoodornament, which seemed reasonably opinionated and asked for other thoughts, was immediately greeted with the suggestion that he had his head up his butt, to name one of many verbal and verbose assaults.

Is that what you call someone who happens to disagree with the "we are chosen" rant?

Axel was kicked out of here because he could not come up with any arguement that did not include calling people names. Dear Cyberella was so disgusted that she could not induce fear in us with her posts that she planted a virus in her post. Wow, that is open-minded.

Popper, Hood is reasonably opinionated except when you bring up abortion at which point she becomes the female version of Fred Phelps...and Hood can more than stick up for herself and has. She just has failed to prove to Free and myself that we are going to hell because we lack the "chosen" belief system.

What are you talking about? He asked for thoughts, we gave them. I think enlighten and I are both open minded individuals, but there is a difference between being open minded, and being duped.

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
~ Lucretius, De Rerum Natura

Hoodornament can take care of Hoodornament, I was just surprised at the reaction. Don't know all the history but the response seemed too strong, as if she was not entitled to have her own opinion. For someone just stepping into the room, it seemed like an overreaction and had a "ranting" tone, maybe a poor choice of words on my part. However, I think you all calling yourselves "open minded" may also be a poor choice of words, from what I was reading here.

Hood's favorite cause is abortion or should I say saving the unborn. That's ok with me, everyone is entitle to an opinion, just don't wave a book at me to justify your opinions.

I, personally, would welcome more voices in here that are willing to discuss any subject not related to football.

Our collective history goes a long way in explaining the reaction...you can only hear the same song so many times before the tune gets old...some people refuse to sing a new song, ever.

Have a good day

Nothing going on in this thread yet.... I was hoping hood would have replied by now.

Hmph..

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
~ Lucretius, De Rerum Natura

Guess that means we won...frankly, all they want to talk about around here is FOOTBALL. I was thinking about starting a thread about Hershel Walker. LOL

The gamecock conversation was fun while it lasted.

Have a good day and Axel, if you're out there I want you to know that I miss you.

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
~ Lucretius, De Rerum Natura

Hood,

This thread was getting stale, so I figured I would keep the debate going. You brought up an article from an Evangelical Christian, in a debate about Abortion. How could you possibly believe that religion would not be tossed into the mix.

The reason Abortion and Stem Cell research is such a hot topic is due to the high influence of religion, nothing more. I enjoy our debates. Your quote "I hate to admit it, but I am unworthy to respond to your posts." is defeatist, and frankly I expect more from you. I don't believe I have run off people of faith, my previous post was simply a joke. I was poking a stick at the soft white underbelly of this discussion (since no one was responding) and it appears you got offended.

Anarchist? Come on, thats a little harsh. I am a liberal, don't get me wrong, but I believe in the principals of our founding fathers and the awesome secular government they created.

We proposed a government where the individual is accountable to the individual? No, I believe the individual is directly accountable to themselves. I believe the government's duty to everyone is to protect those individual rights. Look at the Bill of Rights. Do these not apply to all individuals?
Anarchy in definition is a state of society without government or laws - at what point have Enlighten or myself ever suggested this?

Ok, so lets get real. You bring up an article written by an Evangelical christian is didn't think that article would be biased? Come on. You posted it to spread bias against a candidate due to your position that Abortion. You can post all the horrific stories about abortions you want, but that does not change the fact that it is the right of the parents to choose what to do with that fetus, not the right of the church or state!!

Did the evangelical christians get out an re-elect bush in 2004? Why did they not research his issues? He is pro-life but does not hesitate to flip the switch and electrocute prisoners in his home state. His is pro-life but does not hesitate to send kids to die in Iraq for profit. Starting to see a pattern here?

What I find hysterical about the anti-women crowd, is that you are so concerned with the fetus pre-birth, you turn your back on it post-birth. Look at the Stem Cell debate. The religious right decided that harvesting stem cells from a blastocist was destroying the "sanctity of life". How many cells do you think a blastocist has? Roughly - 150. How many cells do you think a brain of a fly has? Well over 100,000. So why don't you start a crusade against swatting flies?

I posted several questions to you on 4/11, yet you have neglected to answer them. Instead you decide to attack me and enlighten for having a rational discussion.

Is it offending you that I don't hold your belief in a higher power sacred? Is it offending you that I don't cherish your belief in your holy book? I don't. I put religion in the same field as tax policy, books on lawn care, and stem cell research. What reason should I hold your beliefs sacred? If I did that I would have to hold the beliefs of David Koresh, Tom Cruise, that weird guy who walks around holding a bullhorn and a puppet spouting off about the end of the world, and Fred Phelps all sacred. All those beliefs are rubbish in my view, and so are all other religious beliefs.

I post a rebuttal to your post, and then mvalinski brings up my Atheism. So, naturally I had to respond and deliver a logical rebuttal to his post. What is wrong with that? Hopefully, I made him re-evaluate his beliefs and / or his positions.

I never said I had a more enlightened view of the world. I just choose what I believe based on critical and rational thinking. You turn to a book and believe everything in it. What evidence do you have for the existence of your deity? Is it just the fact that your religious views were indoctrinated to you by your parents? Have you not indoctrinated your children with those same views prior to their ability to make up their own minds?

I like sitting back and watching how off-the-wall you two can be.

Please cite examples. I would really like to see our off the wall remarks. Women having the right to choose what they do with their bodies - is that an off the wall argument? Individual rights - is that so off the wall? Not believing in a deity due to lack of evidence - is that so off the wall?

If you are not willing to have your beliefs critically examined, then why post them here at all? If you aren't looking for a debate of ideas - then what are you doing here? Did you want others just to blindly read the article and go "man, someone posted this article so it must be true" without even examining it?

To put one's opinion out into public and believe that it would not be critically examined is foolish. Hopefully, you will think about the questions I have posted and truly examine your beliefs.

Until then, I hope we can have more debates on the issues - because I find those very entertaining.

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
~ Lucretius, De Rerum Natura

Many people play the lottery even though they realize according to probability laws that they have the same odds of winning as being struck by lightening (about 1 in 2,000,000). However it is true that in order to win you must buy a ticket even though the odds are against you. Without a ticket a person has NO chance of winning. Peter Stoner, Professor Emertis of Science at Westmont College has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophesies made concerning the Messiah. (it can be found on the Internet). He submitted his figures to the American Scientific Affiliation who verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented. Professor Stoner concluded that the "odds" on one man (Jesus) being born in Bethlehem was one in 2.8 x 10 to the 5th power - or rounded, one in 300,000. We non-mathemeticians can understand that it is easier to win the Pick-3 because there are less numbers than the Pick 4 or Lottery Pick 6.

The Lord Jesus, the Christ, has fulfilled more than 450 Biblical prophesies. Many were written more than 1,000 years before He chose to be born of woman in the flesh. Psalm 22 is all about the death that Jesus would experience on the cross. It can be verified through research as to it's dating as can Jesus. The WORLD sets it's dating by His death. It occurred 2008 years ago. Even though Israel and China are in the 5,000's (in years) they still abide by 2008. The odds on one person fulfilling only 8 out of 8 prophesies are one in 10 to the 17th power. That is a figure with "17" 0"s !!!

In financial terms would anyone not invest in a financial venture if the chance of failure were only one in 10 to the 17th power ? This kind of sure investment we are offered by God for belief in Christ His Messiah. Professor Stoner concluded that "the fulfillment of these eight prophesies alone proves that God inspired the writting of those prophesies to a definiteness which lacks only one chance in 10 to the 17th power of being absolute.

The above figure is based on the odds on Jesus fulfilling 8 out of 8 prophesies. The Professor computed the odds on 48 out of 48 prophesies being fulfilled by one person is 10 to the 157th power. That number contains 157 zero's !!!!! What if one tryed to calculate the odds of one person fulfilling more than 450 out of 450 . If you believe the Bible, it is mathematically impossible not Jesus is not GOD.

The Bible is the source of all truth. One can choose to believe it or not to. That again is part of the free will (freedom to choose what we will believe or not believe).

You can verify or check the "math". I will gladly give you a website where you can get a listing of all the prophesies which list the prophesy verses (Old Testament) as well as the fulfillment of it by Jesus in the New Testament verses.

The question becomes if you believe the Bible or not. The entire Bible is Christocentric and revolves around Jesus for He is the Living Word. If you tend to disbelieve everything I have been trying to show you here, you might want to read the Book of Proverbs chapters 10-26. You may find yourself there. Or you may just choose to sarcastically criticise the life-line I have just tryed to throw to you. I will continue to pray for you.

Thank you. The presentation of evidence is appreciated.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Psalm 14:1

daughter of promise