American Constitution OR Theocracy - PICK ONE

reply to post by Cuervo

Dear Cuervo,

I'M SORRY, I WAS WRONG. I made an assumption about you that was in error. I said I'd apologize, and I offer you a very sincere apology. I'm also grateful for the clarification you've provided. It does help me understand.

But, if you've seen me around, you know that I am Mr. Confusion, and I need a little more help.

Then you should be able to make a case as to how your position on the law would benefit everybody. . . . You should be able to make your case without bringing your religion it to it. If not, you are advocating theocracy.

This time I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you, but no offer of an apology here. How do you handle the case where one might have three reasons for a position and one is religious (as in gay marriage) Leave the religious one out? I'm sorry, but that seems like a "Free Speech" problem brewing. Or, are you asking that we censor ourselves?

Is the standard that you're suggesting "You should be able to make a case showing the law benefits everybody without bringing in any religious thought?" I know you don't mean that. "Everybody" would mean that abortion, gay marriage, drug use would all fail.

And for people supporting those positions, either now or at some time in the past, their argument could only be: "We have no idea who will benefit and who will be harmed, but we want it."

By all means, be against gay marriage simply because your religion tells you to but don't make the mistake that our law is subject to your church.

I agree completely, our law is subject to the desires of 51% of the population who have to be persuaded by one set of arguments or another. Definitely not by a religious body. I would not like that at all.

So, no... even if my religion was the flavor of the month and being touted around as the main reason to back up my positions, I would still be just as disgusted by people who try to use it to govern others.

This is another example of the terrible misunderstanding we seem to be having. I don't think Christians are trying to govern others, as Christians. (I know that sounds funny. I don't know quite how to fix it.) I think, on some issues, the church expresses her opinion and the believers express theirs. That seems to me just and reasonable. Force? No that would be wrong (and my argument would be based on religious reasons. ) Persuade on grounds that almost anyone would find objectionable? That's allowed. JFK was our President because he had a better make up man in the TV debates. That kind of silly reason is allowed as part of the mysterious creature named "Man." There was a fair amount of questionable behavior in getting 60 Senators to vote for Obamacare. My point here is that many government decisions are made for irrelevant reasons. To try to silence a reason that many are vitally concerned with, but you aren't concerned with, seems an uncomfortable place to be.

It would not be fair, though, to fail to tell you that you strike me as a very intelligent and thoughtful poster. Thank you for responding to me, you're really helping my thinking.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by LauraM


Um yes outlawing abortion is forcing women to be baby factories, it makes them create a baby.

Pregnancy wracks most womens bodies, scarring them for life in many cases, stretch marks, sagging breasts etc. In a society like ours where looks really do matter a great deal, most of the time, it is wrong force a 1e year old girl to destroy her body for life, making her feal disfigured to the point of not being able to go to the pool ever again, or wear skimpy clothing, or being completely comfortable with their lover, always questioning if he thinks she is a disfigured as she feels.

If a man was able to carryh a baby as well it would be different, but it is what it is, and forcing half thhe human race to preform acts the other half des not have to is a messed up world view. It is akin to the way so many arab countries denegrate and reduce women to a sub status , simply for being born a girl, like it was her choice to begin with.

Try to say " she could have chosen t not have sex etc." Well the boy could have also, but men get a free pass to screw and not chance their bodies being destroyed because of it.

By the way I am a man, and my exwife and I had 2 children that weren't planned, we talked and both agreed abortion wasn't an option, as we both believe it is a moral travesty. I personally believe it to be very wrong, and immoral in every situation, as a life is a life.

That doesn't make my personal oppinions any more important than anyone elses though, it shouldn't make yours more important either though. If they are sinning against their GOD, he will met out his justice on them, it is not the concern of anyone but the woman involved, and her GOD. If she is not religious, it is her morality that should decide this issue.

What your proposing is tyranical, to decide a woman should have to do as YOU say, because YOU think so.

What I am telling you is, IT IS NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS EITHER WAY!

reply to post by inverslyproportional

Dear inverslyproportional,

I hope you don't mind if I jump into the middle of your talk with LauraM. You've raised several points, but I think I'll stop after a couple. As you can see, I get pretty wordy.

You start with the idea that pregnancy is a major, destructive, event for women's bodies. (Which it doesn't need to be. It's not inevitable.) I get the impression that you're speaking about the psychological effect on a young girl who has an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. So let's say that pregnancy destroys a woman physically and emotionally. Is that the response you'd get if you talked to 100 mothers? If you asked them "Are you glad you had your baby?" What per centage do you think would say "Yes?" (And that doesn't even begin to look at the psychological damage done to women who have abortions.)

Um yes outlawing abortion is forcing women to be baby factories, it makes them create a baby.

Would you consider rephrasing that? Maybe something like "Outlawing abortions forces women to carry their baby to term?"

Try to say " she could have chosen t not have sex etc." Well the boy could have also, but men get a free pass to screw and not chance their bodies being destroyed because of it.

If you know that women will be seriously affected by pregnancy, certainly they must know it, too. Doesn't that mean that they have a reason to be extra careful with sex, more so than the men? Are you suggesting that no one should be concerned about it, boy or girl?

You've given me so much more to talk about, but let me switch to the second issue.

What I am telling you is, IT IS NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS EITHER WAY!

Well, if it involves governmental decisions, it's every body's business.

The Supreme Court decided the states have no say in the issue.

Congress decides whether or not to fund abortion.

The HHS mandates deal with abortion inducing drugs.

States can set standards for abortion clinics.

The question of when a life should receive human rights is discussed by the Supreme Court, Congress and the states.

The reasons a mother may use to justify an abortion are limited by the government.

The qualifications of an abortion provider are determined by the states. And on, and on. Clearly, it's everybody's business.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by LauraM
reply to post by Cuervo

 

There you go again, trying to invalidate my beliefs becasue they are rooted in Chrisitanity. I'm sorry, but you are being very dictatorial. You are saying believe as I do, or you shouldn't have a voice.

I didn't say anything like that. I said... kind of what you are saying, actually.

Originally posted by LauraM
I would not use biblical quotes in my arguments, but there is no denying that they would stem from my religion.

Yeah. I know. You can have your beliefs and those beliefs can stem from your religion but don't go quoting scriptures, doctrines, or churches to make a case for legislation.

Originally posted by LauraM
That being said I lean much more toward leaving things up to individuals, not being dictated to by the government or tyrannical people who insist that others should believe as they do. As it is in the real world, we are being ever increasingly micro-managed by the government.

But. That's what I just said...

Originally posted by LauraM
I'm glad you are not in charge.

Why? Because I wouldn't use my religion to tell you how to live?

Because as you originally stated, religion has no place in politics. You would silence my political views (votes) because they are rooted in Christianity. Most people's political beliefs are rooted in their personal beliefs, whether it's from eastern philosophy or Marxist writings, or the bible. I think that we have come full circle at this point.

reply to post by charles1952


Of course you may interject, this is an open forum.
Question1. For many women it isn't an option, as skin elasticity only goes so far, as well as the calcium supplies of the body, and it is quite mentaly chalenging especially for the young, pregnancy cares not about your age or income status.

Question 2 I don't know any women that I know of having had an abortion, so all I could offer would be conjecture, which is the same as nothing. Although I don't know any women that regret having their children, even at a young age. Though that does not mean many wouldn't feel quite different.

Question 3. I say what I do because it is unequal, as a boy can simply get a girl pregnant and walk away so to speak, leaving her to deal with the consequences alone. This causes inequal treatment under the law which is illegal.

Lst statement. It is not the .gov position or place to decide what is good for women only on a subject that clearly took both to cause in the first place.IMHO of course as many would see it differently.

However it is my assertion that others don't have a right to force their version of morality on others, as this is tyranny.

Should have said all that was on your mind, I am not concerned with the amount of words, I like to read, especially intelligent thought out discourse. This is how we all cme to understand others perspectives, and thus, the world as a whole.

reply to post by charles1952

Clearly, it's everybody's business.

no differently than any other medical procedure and why should it be ??
This medical procedure (abortion) to remove a parasite should not be any more politically, morally or religiously divisive than removing a tumor.

still doesn't make it everyone's decision or one that should be influenced by any religion other than that of the prospective parents.

Would you consider rephrasing that? Maybe something like "Outlawing abortions forces women to carry their baby to term?"

no, because that's absolutely false as history has already proven.

Doesn't that mean that they have a reason to be extra careful with sex, more so than the men?

again NO, because women don't ejaculate their eggs, ever, not even for pleasure.

the responsibility of consenting participants is always equal since one cannot reproduce without the other. so then, should both be punished ??
i find it odd that in most religious theory, that answer is no ... that truly puzzles me.

IF it were illegal to create an unwanted pregnancy, do you think men would be "extra careful with sex, moreso than women?"

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by charles1952

 

Of course you may interject, this is an open forum.
Question1. For many women it isn't an option, as skin elasticity only goes so far, as well as the calcium supplies of the body, and it is quite mentaly chalenging especially for the young, pregnancy cares not about your age or income status.


Question 2 I don't know any women that I know of having had an abortion, so all I could offer would be conjecture, which is the same as nothing. Although I don't know any women that regret having their children, even at a young age. Though that does not mean many wouldn't feel quite different.

Question 3. I say what I do because it is unequal, as a boy can simply get a girl pregnant and walk away so to speak, leaving her to deal with the consequences alone. This causes inequal treatment under the law which is illegal.

Sorry, but there is no way to legislate nature from being what it is

Lst statement. It is not the .gov position or place to decide what is good for women only on a subject that clearly took both to cause in the first place.IMHO of course as many would see it differently.
You are absolutely right. But government does have an essential duty to protect human life. This is one of the basics. It is only scientists and abortion activists who call a baby a fetus. Ask any pregnant woman- I'll bet even the ones considering an abortion; they will call it a baby.

However it is my assertion that others don't have a right to force their version of morality on others, as this is tyranny.


Should have said all that was on your mind, I am not concerned with the amount of words, I like to read, especially intelligent thought out discourse. This is how we all cme to understand others perspectives, and thus, the world as a whole.

reply to post by Cuervo
Cuervo,
kudos for your willingness to point out the imbalance in many arguments

i happen to agree with your sentiment (for the most part) but i'd have to draw a line where you said this ...

Why is it then, that the people who espouse American freedom and talk about the constitution are so often the very same people who bring up religion when speaking about law?

if you cannot answer this question yourself, then perhaps you do not understand the Constitution in a manner that would be appropriate.

the short answer is because the Constitution is not law.
(yes, it's said that it's the Highest Law in the Land but that is a label just like any other)
religion and the practice thereof is protected by the Constitution.
hence, conversations should involve said aspects and all opinions should be welcome, even zealous religious ones.

doesn't mean any law should be based on said religious opinions, however, they should certainly be considered.

personally, i believe if a potential "law" infringes on anyone's religious practice, it shouldn't be permitted to be a "law". however, we all have our fantasies.

and lastly, i do agree with your final statement ... don't use your religion or your beliefs as a weapon to take away the freedom of others.

reply to post by LauraM

reply to post by Honor93

Dear Honor93,

Thanks for bringing up some new thoughts, I'm grateful to you.

no differently than any other medical procedure and why should it be ??
This medical procedure (abortion) to remove a parasite should not be any more politically, morally or religiously divisive than removing a tumor.

But as I tried to point out, it currently is, and has been, a subject of government legislation and decisions. I quite understand that some think it shouldn't be in the future, but what circumstances are facing us right now? You may remember that the Hippocratic oath, governing physicians conduct, had been unchanged for thousands of years, until the 1960's. Until that time it told physicians that they were not to perform abortions. You must see how an abortion has been considered to be significantly different from an appendectomy.

still doesn't make it everyone's decision or one that should be influenced by any religion other than that of the prospective parents.

Just a tiny point. You probably don't mean "prospective parents," I think you mean "prospective mother."

Would you consider rephrasing that? Maybe something like "Outlawing abortions forces women to carry their baby to term?"
no, because that's absolutely false as history has already proven.

But then, so is the original quote I was suggesting should be rephrased, by your statement. How would you phrase it?

Doesn't that mean that they have a reason to be extra careful with sex, more so than the men?
again NO, because women don't
ejaculate their eggs, ever, not even for pleasure.

This one I just don't understand.

the responsibility of consenting participants is always equal since one cannot reproduce without the other. so then, should both be punished ??
i find it odd that in most religious theory, that answer is no ... that truly puzzles me.

Maybe I can help, depending on what you mean by "punish." But first, if the responsibility is equal, why does only one have the right to make a decision? How can you be responsible for the outcome if you can't control the outcome?

On "punishment." At least in the Catholic belief, both have done wrong. And if the man supports or encourages the abortion, his guilt is equal there, as well. Legal punishment? that's left to the governmant to decide.

IF it were illegal to create an unwanted pregnancy, do you think men would be "extra careful with sex, moreso than women?"

Well, I don't know about men, but I would be. Wait a minute, though. This "unwanted" business has me confused. Does that mean a woman who says, "Let's make a baby," then three months later decides she doesn't want to have it, makes the man a criminal for an "unwanted" pregnancy? That's just wrong. Maybe we should rephrase that, too.

I really appreciate you, and the fact that you brought these points up. Thanks.

With respect,
charles1952

Hurry! Hurry! Make a choice, NOW! There is only two to choose from! Two extremes!
(put in some emotional button pushing words and voila! You can get them in without them even stopping to turn the wheels in their head !) This is what you learn to do in sales.

I am for gay marriage, abortion and all that. BUT
I think that things like religion still influence all the laws made, because morals and values influence each person, whether those come from a specific organized religion, a personal spiritual journey, a less acknowledged worship system like that of capitalism, individualism or collectivism.

The constitution even ssays that our rights are not given by the government, but by our Creator- don't tell me there isn't a bit o' the religion in it! That is not completely accurate. That is just a bit tweaked..... in order to sell.

People are going to let their values and morals influence their choices, and their choices shall influence the laws made. That is what happens in Democracies.

Are you against Democracy? Is that what you are saying? Then you are for Dictatorship!

You are either for one or the other! Make your choice!

(that's just a joke. America is a Republic anyway, it is not a Democracy. But that is a good button pusher to use! )

reply to post by inverslyproportional


One of the few and basic legitmate purposes of government is to protect life.

Government is all about forcing morality on others. Murder in all other circumstances is prevented and punished. Abortion kills a human life. Only scientists and abortion activists describe a baby as a fetus or a glob of cells. Ask any pregnant woman. Some will argue that it's ok since it can't survive without the mother. As a mother I will tell you that this remains true until at least 5 years old, and realistically not until at least 10. Already there are people (extremists I'm sure) that are arguing that mothers should be able to kill their children using the same arguments that are used for abortion. Already, with partial-birth abortion, full term viable babies are legally killed. The same is true of babies who survive abortion.

Babies are not dropped into to women unwittingly by storks. It requires active participation. The time for birth control is before sex. Contraceptives are widely available for free even to minors.

This is not about telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. It is about protecting the life of a baby which has it's own body. Go ahead and delude yourself by calling it a parasite, or a glob of cells if you want. Or just be a man and admit that you believe in infanticide.

reply to post by LauraM

Murder in all other circumstances is prevented and punished.

only on TV dear, only on tv.
did you know that murders make up the greatest amount of unsolved crimes ??
prevented you say ?? how ? When ? what law did that ?
can't punish them if they are not solved, can we ??

abortion removes a parasite.
that parasite isn't a baby or any other fancy name until it is no longer a parasite.

women who are pregnant don't say "I have a baby" ... because they don't and they know it.


reply to post by charles1952

you are quite welcome, thought-provoking is a good thing, right ?

But as I tried to point out, it currently is, and has been, a subject of government legislation and decisions.

yes, you did, however, no moreso than cancer, diabetes, MS or any other medical condition.
(see Obamacare)
so, pardon me for saying so but i don't follow or see your point here.

i don't recall the oath verbatim from then or now, so taking your word for it, i'd suppose RvW had something to do with that change.

and, i do see your point but let's not ignore that lobotamies used to be "standard procedure" also. just because it once was, doesn't make it right then or right now.

i find it more abhorrent to consider or accept the return of self-inflicted, back-alley, non-sterile type abortions and the consequences of them.

laws do not stop such actions and the threat of punishment only fuels more desperate acts.

actually, no, i mean "prospective parents", she didn't get pregnant alone.
fyi, i endorse a pro-life position, however, i am staunchly pro-choice.
(and personally experienced)
IF more men making these unwanted pregnancies acted in the benefit of the "child", perhaps abortions would naturally become a thing of the past.

uhhhh, i'd have to go search that one out, don't remember. care to post it ??
i was responding to your re-write but don't recall the original.

what don't you understand about that statement ??
women have orgasms without releasing any eggs, men do not.
men cannot have an orgasm without releasing sperm, no intercourse necessary.
men often, release sperm that does result in pregnancy, without even engaging in intercourse.
not so with women.

that is not a discussion i wish to have as it is totally off-topic.
another thread is currently addressing suggested "punishment", perhaps we should engage your curiosity there ?

How can you be responsible for the outcome if you can't control the outcome?

pregancy is not an accident. abortion is not an accident.
if neither are accidents, both participants are responsible for the outcome / pregnancy.

abortion is not an "outcome", pregnancy is.
seems to me that if the rate of irresponsible, unprotected sex reduced, so would abortions.

Well, I don't know about men, but I would be.

glad to hear it, hope it serves/served you well.

well, i can see your point there too but by then, it appears only the women would be punished anyway.

as a man, i'm relatively sure you won't want to hear this but, truth is truth so consider this please ... even within your Catholic belief system, wouldn't you agree less seed = less fruit ??

reply to post by LauraM

This is not about telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.

in a Theocracy, it certainly would be. is that what you prefer ?

It is about protecting the life of a baby which has it's own body.

not until it can survive sans its host ... and for most, that's full term.

Go ahead and delude yourself by calling it a parasite, or a glob of cells if you want.

that's not a delusion, it's a fact ... do you need a definition ??

Or just be a man and admit that you believe in infanticide.

thanks, but i'll be a woman and still hold a pro-choice belief ... it is the American/Constitutional way.

reply to post by charles1952

Charles, looking back over the posts, would this be the 'original' comment to which you referenced ?

Um yes outlawing abortion is forcing women to be baby factories, it makes them create a baby.

if so, i disagree with it entirely.

here's why ... outlawing abortion doesn't force a woman to do anything.
women are born baby factories, we have all the eggs.
women cannot create babies all by themselves.
and lastly, no law can force them to create babies either.

i understand what this poster was getting at but i don't agree with how it was said.
any other questions ??

oh yeah, didn't you want me to re-phrase that comment ??
if so, i'd go with something more like ... outlawing abortion is a ridiculous concept.

reply to post by LauraM


Um I believe you are wanting to aplogize to me for juxtiposing anothers statements on me. I never called the "fetus" that is the medical term BTW, a glob or parasite.

As for most of your other statements, I will refer you to my first paragraph in this response.

So in closing you do realize, I am not the member who said those things correct?

Oh, and birth control fails all the time, see my post about my exwife and i having 2 accidental pregnancies, that we kept, because as I stated multiple times in this thread alone, it is my belief that abortion is morally reprehensible, but that does not mean, I think it shouldnt be an option for others who feel differently, as forcing ones beliefs on another against their will is tyrany.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares that “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

An unborn baby is life. No religion has to state that to any mother carrying her baby. Nor to any father watching that life grow in that womb.

You are hypocritical OP, stating the choice is between the Constitution and a theocracy. That Constitution already declares that no person shall be deprived of life. It protected the unborn life for almost 200 years, yet a force arose that was able to convince enough people that the definition of life no longer applied to babies in the womb. Therefore, the Constitution that you feel is your protector failed millions by allowing them to be butchered. That Constution is being reworked through the courts as they redefine the very words in it. It therefore means NOTHING.

You reject the True God of Heaven and Earth's Word, therefore you fail to heed the many warnings that we will be having a theocracy... unfortunately the "god" in that word will be the son of destruction who only brings about death, misery and suffering. 

And some comments by professing Christians on this board clearly reject the notion that God's Kingdom WILL BE A THEOCRACY. There will be no "rights" to choose evil because there will be no evil. He commands all of us to have nothing to do with it, and that most definitely excludes the attitude that abortion must be tolerated in our society. You do not want anyone OP to base their arguments on what Our Creator states, yet you are a hypocrite when your own beliefs derive from elsewhere and you believe that they supersede those of the True God. All of our beliefs stem from SOMEONE, and the truth is, you have utterly know idea who or what gave you yours. I can say that with utmost confidence because I spent 41 years soaking up the beliefs given to me by Satan, and for the past 2 years the gracious and merciful God of Heaven and Earth has been tearing them down. 

That Constitution that you think will save you is but a worthless piece of paper when society can redefine the very words in it. It's like the failing morality in this country and the absurd idea that it must be redefined just because we live in a technological and "modern" society. Despite millions in prison, bars on windows, locked and alarmed homes, thousands of raped kids and women, abductions, mass murders, rising suicides, 4,000 babies sacrificed every day, our food getting genetically engineered, constant war and bloodshed, graphic and obscene tv and gaming, etc etc etc, most cannot see that the Constitution has utterly failed to protect "life, liberty or property" for many in this country. Why not? Because most reject the truth that it is God who saves, not a piece of paper that people fail to realise isn't even doing what it promised.

Yes, a theocracy is coming. The RNC declared "We built this", Ron Paul declared "We are the future" and 
the theme coming from the DNC: "Government is God, and abortion is a sacrament." the cheers were deafening. They ALL are promising the last Babel - Godless government built on the sins of humanity - and it will be a theocracy that utterly rejects the light and love of Christ Jesus. It may declare "Christianity" or another "god", but it will be the same result - death and destruction - because it's god is the god of this age, Satan.

Wow, this thread became a debate on abortion. Well, that actually segues into one of my points. Non sequitur, shall we?

I am a liberal. I am pagan. I am pro-life. My civic sense of justice says to protect all life. I am also for complete legalization of abortion. How is this, you ask?

Simple:
- My religion tells me abortion is wrong.
- My liberal ethics tell me that adults have free will.
- My pro-life stance says that I should defend newly-conceived life.
- My sense of civic philosophy says to protect all life.

Conclusion? Best way to combat abortion is to financially support and protect all women who decide to keep their children and to streamline adoption laws. The worst way to do it is to make it illegal. That only makes abortions dangerous.

Point? I can hold my ground on my positions that are backed by my religious beliefs but, at the same time, make an argument completely based in civic philosophy. I don't have to bring up any of my gods or goddesses to make my point or just tell you "cause god said".

How about World War or wolrd wide rave parties? pick one. We must help each other no rooom for hate or war. one world one love we need one wolrd gov now. we need aliens to land to distract us from ww3 iran syria isreal. aiens anding is the only thing that will prevent world war 3

reply to post by TheOneElectric

It's a living Constitution and it was created that way "on purpose" because people expected changing circumstances and social evolution.

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas

While I firmly agree with the OP - my faith applies to my life personally, and my views of the next world; my political views to this one and life in general - I will have to disagree with the general concept of a 'living constitution' which in effect becomes no contract with the people to any appreciable degree.

They built in an amendment process which should be adhered to for any needed changes - beyond that, they had clear and specific intents for what they wrote that can be confirmed with some basic research that is sadly not conducted all too often by Congress or the Supreme Court.

Take care.