Support Abortion? Watch this video and please defend your decisions...

reply to post by Heike



Would you say that being against molestation, and supporting laws that limit contact with minors, unfair?

I mean, there are lots of older men who think they should be able to be with a 15 year old.

So someone feeling they are justified in their personal views means I can't defend the victim?

We are not talking Gay rights, or anything like that. That is a personal choice that my views on morality should not impact.

I am talking about defending an unborn baby.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

reply to post by Aermacchi


What country are you in?

I am in the United States, and here we have freedom of religion. That means you can't force your religious views or rules on me.

So, if you are in the US, try making your argument(s) without referencing God or your religion, since the beliefs and rules of your religion have no bearing on US law.

According to separation of church and state, you may not use the tenets or "rules" of any one religion to justify laws which will govern all US citizens whether or not they are of that religion.

So, as I said, if you are in the "free" country known as America or the United States of America, please present reasons for issues of law without using religious beliefs as a basis.

Thanks.

reply to post by Heike


Actually, the defense was offered up because the poster was attacked for being judgemental, and the poster was rebuked for apparantly going against the bible. (and that whole judging thing)

But the poster then pointed out their defense, which based on the attack, means that the Bible is actually the only source that the person could use.

Get it? (no offense, I'm sure you just read too fast, and I do that too.)

Originally posted by jasonjnelson

 

Would you say that being against molestation, and supporting laws that limit contact with minors, unfair?

Ok, let's take that as analogy. Pedophile molests child, gets arrested because it is against the law. Goes to jail.

Result? No more children at risk, at least for a while, and a man who is a menace to society is behind bars.

Teenage girl gets pregnant because birth control method didn't work, is terrified, knows parents and boyfriend will disapprove. Performs "abortion" on self with coat hanger, goes to hospital. After hospital stay is arrested and goes to jail because abortion is illegal.

Result? Teenage girl who is no risk to anyone except her own unborn child is now in prison instead of school. Guess what HER future is going to be like. Fetus is still dead.

So, what exactly have you accomplished?

I am talking about defending an unborn baby.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

It's not YOUR unborn baby. It is someone else's unborn baby, and their responsibility, not yours. Why is that so hard to grasp?

(Edit to correct spelling. Egads, I'm not perfect!)


EDIT again to add my apology if the explanation given above for Aermacchi's post is correct. I had read several of her posts - including the one directed at me which ripped me a new one and it seemed that she is/was using the Christian Bible as justification for making abortion illegal. If that is incorrect, I sincerely apologize.


[edit on 27-3-2009 by Heike]

Originally posted by Heike
So, if you are in the US, try making your argument(s) without referencing God or your religion, since the beliefs and rules of your religion have no bearing on US law.

This -> United States Code 36 U.S. 302

and This -> States Code 36 U.S. 119

Originally posted by Heike
According to separation of church and state

There is no such thing. Please cite the law or portion of the Constitution that says there's a "separation of church and state".



[edit on 27-3-2009 by dbates]

The First Amendment contains two clauses about the Freedom of Religion. The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second as the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of his or her religion. However, religious actions and rituals can be limited by civil and federal laws.

Source

You have no right to impose your religious beliefs on me. Therefore, you do not have the right to impose laws which will govern me which are based on your religious beliefs.

(I am frustrated)

Could a mod explain to me why the video was dis-allowed?

There was no warning on the OP, so is it because of a personal belief?

This is not an attack, just a question.

I tried to repost it, due to no one answering my request to fix it...

Just wanted an explaination please?

reply to post by Heike

That merely states that Congress can't make laws restricting religion. Unless your religion is based on aborting babies, then your out or luck. Congress can pass laws restricting abortion.

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by jasonjnelson

 

Whose rights are more important, then?

The woman or the fetus?

Like I said, this is an argument that will not get settled on an internet site.

[edit on 3/25/2009 by skeptic1]

Didnt you know we are supposed to kill the mother for her decision to abort malformed baby, bad decision, broken rubber, rape, whatever the reason. I say scastically. I was with a woman a few years ago, and we had a broken rubber incident. Most of the goo came out, so she didnt want the day after pill, but low and behold, a couple of my swimmers made it anyway. We had an abortion because we had protection but it didnt work, and we were already getting sick of each others faces. We were totally not compatible, to bring a child into this world under these circumstances is more evil than the abortion.
But you are right, this issue will never be solved here or anywhere. There are things that happen in other parts of the world that are the norm, and we would not approve of, who is right??

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
It's ignorant and pathetic to defend an un-born baby's life?

No it's ignorant to use Emotionally charged propaganda to support your stance against a woman's right to choose.


The question of whether or not a woman has a right to choose is not answered by the emotional charge of a disgusting video.

It's a philosophical one, not an emotional one... that is why it's ignorant.

What i beleive is that people should be made to feel more confortable about protecting themselves from the...downsides of sex. Until people start being educated on being careful (and i dont mean blantent lectures about birthcontrol) Abortion, in my books, is a choice (So long as its done at a reasonable time)

Not everything is black and white, its naive to think so.

reply to post by dbates


The objection of most people to abortion is based on religious belief. It is not science nor general human understanding which says that the fetus is a "person" at the moment of conception, it is religion.

What right do you think that you have to prevent me from doing something that you believe is wrong due to your religion.

By that logic, a law could be passed making it illegal to eat pork in America because one religion thinks it is wrong.

Or we should have laws against birth control, since a religion practiced by many Americans holds birth control to be wrong.

Or, as in some other countries, there could be a law against women showing their faces in public because that is wrong according to one religion.

A country which claims to have religious freedom must either have laws that reflect the beliefs of ALL religions, or none. Unless you wish to live under laws based on the restrictions found in every religion represented in the US, you should agree that no American laws should reflect the beliefs of any one religion.

Ergo, no abortion laws since not all religions consider it to be wrong.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Calling people 'ignorant' is what people do when they have no better argument.
"Emotionally charged" video? It is what it is.
But seriously, I didn't know it was against the T&C....

reply to post by HunkaHunka



Disgusting video?

Tell me, which part was the most disgusting to you?

Specifically please.

Oh wait, you didn't watch it, did you?

Thought so, and now moving on....

Oh, one more thing...
Life is not a philosophical debate. It either is a life, or is not. And at that point, whatever the decision, you must defend the life that is at stake.

Also, throwing out ad hominem attacks of hypocrite, monster, ignorant, religious nut, or any other term isn't going to help anyone.
It just emotionally charges these debates AND it's against the T&C!!!

[edit on 27-3-2009 by Clearskies]

reply to post by jasonjnelson


Life is most definitely a philosophical debate.

We have that debate whenever we discuss capital punishment.

We have that debate when my wife and I decide if we want to have another child.

We have that debate when we go to war.


You don't get much more philosophical than existentialism...

*** GET ON TOPIC ***


The word ignorant isn't always an insult, look up the definition.

Please refrain from using that word furthermore in this thread to prevent the drama.

Thank You.

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Calling people 'ignorant' is what people do when they have no better argument.
"Emotionally charged" video? It is what it is.
But seriously, I didn't know it was against the T&C....

First off... Reading Is Fundamental... get that straight.

I never called the poster ignorant. Someone said the video tactic was ignorant. Someone else said "Why?" I responded with why I believe the tactic of mixing emotional propaganda with a philosophical debate about a woman's right to choose shows ignorance, specifically of good debating skills to be honest.

In the future... please read the actual posts and see what the word ignorant is being used to describe instead of simply allowing the use of the word "ignorant" to trigger an emotional response.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Aermacchi
My mistake I did not realize that when you talk about God, you are referring to YOU. I just go to ask, how does it feel? You know,,,


being perfect and all

Boy, you have a serious comprehension deficit. When I talk about god, I refer to EVERYTHING living. And perfection is a stupid concept that I don't buy into. If god was perfect, why is there ANY violence and death in this world? Your god lacks the ability to stop a tornadoes from ripping through the neighborhoods and killing some of his most devoted followers almost WEEKLY? Wow, created the universe and can't even control a little wind. I bet you say he works in strange ways, and has a plan. If so, abortion is part of it, or it wouldn't exist. Wait, I know, it's just a test. He likes to put food in front of dogs, and enjoys beating them when they take a bite. I wouldn't want to "follow" a god like that.

Do I? Well lets examine your post and see how comprehensive it is to you .

When I talk about god, I refer to EVERYTHING living

I am alive but I assure you, I am not a God. I believe everything living is created by God. I also believe if I was to think everything living reffered to God, The last thing I would do is try to stop those Christians who are trying to stop the destruction of that living thing called a baby.

Am I comprehending God enough for you ?

And perfection is a stupid concept that I don't buy into.

Yes it is a concept and yes anything perfect wouldn't be natural in a material world where man is flawed by sin. I think anything that is perfect would be extra natural or super natural. You know,, something like,, oh say,, A GOD! Yeah you getting this so far genuis?

If god was perfect, why is there ANY violence and death in this world?

God is perfect and is why we can say what is not perfect. If everything God made was perfect in your mind,, there would be nothing more perfect than us, not even a God. You assumption that a Perfect God makes imperfect creations, assumes there is no purpose for the things you have called imperfect. You assume there is no purpose for a tornado that kills those that are his. Yet his word teaches, it is appointed unto man a time to die. Having said that, telling me God isn't perfect when he uses a tornado to bring that appointed time to die to fruition is not only assuming the torando doesn't have a purpose, it is ignorant coming from someone who acknowledges is imperfection yet thinks he can fathom what he doesn't even believe is possible much less understand a reason for it.


EXAMPLE:

I bet you say he works in strange ways, and has a plan. If so, abortion is part of it, or it wouldn't exist

Yeah I see, Abortion should be stopped as you agree and I also see you blame God when it suits you for such acts of imperfect evil. This agains assumes evil doesn't have a purpose for God. Yes God created evil and man chose to understand and know what it is when he chose to know the difference of good and evil by disobeying sound advice and choosing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That sealed our fate and as is told the sins of the fathers get passed down in there DNA. Science keeps proving the Bible correct more everyday.

While you, on the otherhand want to believe we are monkeys in the delusional darwinian diatribe of the most ridiculously argued religion that has ever been used as an alternative to explain away God. That being Evolution. My my my I see all those monkeys performing the killing of there own offspring in what can only be the oxymoronic argument of a survival of a species where if things like Homosexuality is justified as morally right because Monekys do it and out of the straight sexually active monkeys, aborting the birt of there young is morally justified, then we wouold not only never survive, but you damn sure wouldn't see any monkeys much less think we are like them, because we are NOT. God makes this very clear to us.

I have seen this argument many times before where humanists Darwinists and Post modernist's think we should have been made more perfect if we were supposed to be made by a perfect God. They use examples such as how much better the hind legs of a zebra could have been made or how much more efficient he could run if the Zebras knees were redesigned.

But I ask how much more perfect would THAT be if the more perfect legs of the Zebra rob a lion of its next meal.

You see YOU are the one that fails to comprehend anything as we have to understand that when it comes to a reason for why God did this or that, we have no clue until the day we are taught as he says all our questions will be answered when we are his. Who are YOU to say what is perfect and who are you to say you don't buy it?

You buy it all right, you just haven't a clue to what it is you don't buy and don't believe it exists so how the hell do you even know what it is you don't buy when it could be right under your nose and you would say it isn't perfect. I would ask you, are YOU perfect?

Then don't tell me what you think

Is not

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by Heike

 

That merely states that Congress can't make laws restricting religion. Unless your religion is based on aborting babies, then your out or luck. Congress can pass laws restricting abortion.

Actually it swings both ways...

First Amendment: Free Exercise:


The first amendment to the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. It does not protect just the free exercise of Christianity nor does it suggest that Christianity and Christians should be have special protections and privileges. The authors used the term "religion," meaning that all religions have exactly the same status before the law and the government. If they had thought that Christianity were special, they'd have said so; instead, they treated it like every other religion.


First Amendment: No Establishment:


The first amendment to the Constitution also prohibits the government from "establishing" any religion. The meaning of "establishment" is hotly debated and some insist that it merely means that the government can't create a national religion. This reading is too narrow and would make the clause all but meaningless. To have relevance, it must mean that the government can't favor, endorse, promote, or support any religions just as it can't hinder any: it must remain as neutral as possible.