NationStates Jolt Archive

And furthermore, if it comes out that new Supreme Court Justice nominee Sam Alito favors overturning Roe v Wade, they think he shouldn't be approved. (http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=19567) They also say that if Democrats oppose him, they would be justified in filibustering his nomination.
* If it becomes clear Alito would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, Americans would not want the Senate to confirm him, by 53% to 37%.

* If most Senate Democrats oppose the nomination and decide to filibuster against Alito, 50% of Americans believe they would be justified, while 40% say they would not.

Yet another example of how what the right-wing claims is mainstream thought, really isn't. Americans support choice, and depending on which polls you look at, support it overwhelmingly (Gallup is run by a conservative Republican, by the way), but you'd never know it from the news coverage, which always focuses on how sharply divided the country is over the issue.

Welcome to the 20th century in the First World. We have much to teach you! :D

Welcome to the 20th century in the First World. We have much to teach you! :D
Don't tease me. Is it true that Sweden is actively looking for immigrants? Could you use a couple of English professors? :D

Don't tease me. Is it true that Sweden is actively looking for immigrants? Could you use a couple of English professors?

It is? Then I'm leaving, too.

Is it true that Sweden is actively looking for immigrants?

Hmm, in certain distinct fields where we have shortages, like medicine.

Could you use a couple of English professors? :D

I truly don't know if there is use for such, but I do know several Americans and Canadians that work with teaching English to adult students. But professors in English? I just don't know.

And furthermore, if it comes out that new Supreme Court Justice nominee Sam Alito favors overturning Roe v Wade, they think he shouldn't be approved. (http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=19567) They also say that if Democrats oppose him, they would be justified in filibustering his nomination.


Yet another example of how what the right-wing claims is mainstream thought, really isn't. Americans support choice, and depending on which polls you look at, support it overwhelmingly (Gallup is run by a conservative Republican, by the way), but you'd never know it from the news coverage, which always focuses on how sharply divided the country is over the issue.
I think this bears repeating because it will be very easy for some people to divert attention:

Whether or not you personally agree with abortion, it is a FACT that the majority of Americans believe that the decision made in Roe v Wade should stand as settled law. Thus, any person who opposes this decision is not reflecting the majority opinion. Now, THAT IS OKAY, since minority opinions are part of what makes America great, but I'm very sick of certain politicians claiming that their anti-choice stance reflects "American values." I'm even more sick of people claiming that pro-choice politicians and judges are holding views "outside the mainstream." Choice is mainstream, ladies and gentlemen, for better or worse.

Roe v. Wade should definitely be dumped, as it violates the 10th Amendment. States should be allowed to decide their own abortion policies.

Roe v. Wade should definitely be dumped, as it violates the 10th Amendment. States should be allowed to decide their own abortion policies.
Except that in many respects the 14th amendment takes away a lot of the 10th amendments significance.

Abortion is murder and murder is a crime. Logic and common sense will take you far in life folks. Good day!

Except that in many respects the 14th amendment takes away a lot of the 10th amendments significance.

Which is why we should trash the 14th Amendment and restore the federal system enshrined by the Founding Fathers.

Abortion is murder and murder is a crime. Logic and common sense will take you far in life folks. Good day!Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You'll need to prove that it's murder first.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You'll need to prove that it's murder first.

It can't really be "proven" or "disproven." Whether it's murder or not all depends on one's perspective.

It can't really be "proven" or "disproven." Whether it's murder or not all depends on one's perspective.

No, since "murder" is illegal killing, and this is not illegal, nor killing by the by (there's your "perspective" for ya), it's not murder.

Abortion is murder and murder is a crime. Logic and common sense will take you far in life folks. Good day!
Murder is an UNLAWFUL killing and abortion is largely legal. Understanding the words you use will take you far in life.

No, since "murder" is illegal killing, and this is not illegal, nor killing by the by (there's your "perspective" for ya), it's not murder.
Well crap, you beat me to it! :)

Don't bother with Arnburg, he's just another Caribel, without the funny sayings.

Understanding the words you use will take you far in life.

Understanding manners (which you apparently don't, judging by your posts) will take YOU far in life.

And furthermore, if it comes out that new Supreme Court Justice nominee Sam Alito favors overturning Roe v Wade, they think he shouldn't be approved. (http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=19567) They also say that if Democrats oppose him, they would be justified in filibustering his nomination.


Yet another example of how what the right-wing claims is mainstream thought, really isn't. Americans support choice, and depending on which polls you look at, support it overwhelmingly (Gallup is run by a conservative Republican, by the way), but you'd never know it from the news coverage, which always focuses on how sharply divided the country is over the issue.

As much as I want to agree with you, these polls are never really representative of American opinion. The most accurate polls have consistently shown that Americans favor choice in "traumatic circumstances" (rape, mother's health, birth defect), but overall oppose it in "elective circumstances" (too many kids, single, etc). Polls that suggest otherwise (on both sides) generally present implicitly biased questions.

Understanding manners (which you apparently don't, judging by your posts) will take YOU far in life.
It's the internet, fuck conventional manners.

Understanding manners (which you apparently don't, judging by your posts) will take YOU far in life.
Honey, you made a mistake, and I corrected you using the very language that you used in your own post. If the wording was rude, it's only because that's how YOU wrote it.

I know you're embarassed by having made such an obvious mistake in your language, but lashing out at me isn't going to accomplish anything.

Something I don't understand:

Why do Americans seem to get their knickers in such a twist over abortion?

Understanding manners (which you apparently don't, judging by your posts) will take YOU far in life.
Your the one that made the mistake of trying to use incorrect emotive language ... she just replied in the same tone as your original statement

If she does not have manners using your tone of “type” obviously neither do you

Something I don't understand:

Why do Americans seem to get their knickers in such a twist over abortion?
Because non-incubating females make Wingnut Jesus cry.

Why do Americans seem to get their knickers in such a twist over abortion?

I truly don't know. It's never been an issue here, and the politician that even speaks of trying to restrict it will be erecting his/her political tombstone.

Something I don't understand:

Why do Americans seem to get their knickers in such a twist over abortion?Why do the Irish? ;)

I truly don't know. It's never been an issue here, and the politician that even speaks of trying to restrict it will be erecting his/her political tombstone.
It's been an issue over here, during the first few years of Kohl's 20 year reign. Ever since the heated debate got done with, the religious (apart from the catholics that were pulled out by the pope) settled for participating in the mandatory conflict counselling. The only parties still advocating making abortion illegal are the religious and neo-nazi fringe parties.

It's been an issue over here, during the first few years of Kohl's 20 year reign. Ever since the heated debate got done with, the religious (apart from the catholics that were pulled out by the pope) settled for participating in the mandatory conflict counselling. The only parties still advocating making abortion illegal are the religious and neo-nazi fringe parties.

And, fortunately, few people listen to those loons nowadays. :)

It can't really be "proven" or "disproven." Whether it's murder or not all depends on one's perspective.


And pushing someone off of a cliff isn't murder, it's an accident. Oh well!

Very funny, Bottle :)

Why do the Irish? ;)
As far as I've ever heard, they don't. It's simply illegal there.

Everywhere but the USA it seems (to me, under my rock) it's either legal and everybody's happy, or illegal and everyone who wants one goes somewhere else.

It can't really be "proven" or "disproven." Whether it's murder or not all depends on one's perspective.
No it depends on both the legality and dependent on the subjects humanity

The latter is up for debate
The former as of right now is more of a “binary” option

It IS legal right now so at this time (in the usa) so it is NOT murder

Weather it SHOULD be illegal (therefore murder) is a completely different discussion

Murder is an UNLAWFUL killing and abortion is largely legal. Understanding the words you use will take you far in life.


Do you require help in understanding your own words? I am the one that can truely help you!

Everywhere but the USA it seems (to me, under my rock) it's either legal and everybody's happy, or illegal and everyone who wants one goes somewhere else.

That's thing, the poor, who are the ones who more often need them, cannot go somewhere else. Ireland and Portugal are truly a shame for Western Europe in this respect, but I guess that's why we have abortion boats! ;)

Do you require help in understanding your own words? I am the one that can truely help you!
Do they need to say anything else in an argument about diction?

IMHO, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned in the States. The Supreme Court established a precedent with the *implied* constitutional right to privacy--which has since become a tenet in several major judicial decisions. The conservative right to lifers, no matter how loudly they screech and moan and wail, have yet to realize how many OTHER decisions were effected by Roe v Wade... some of which will take the government right into their OWN houses.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You'll need to prove that it's murder first.

Since it has been proven that life begins at conception.....


then yes it is murder.

Since it has been proven that life begins at conception.....


then yes it is murder.

Hahahahahaha.

As much as I want to agree with you, these polls are never really representative of American opinion. The most accurate polls have consistently shown that Americans favor choice in "traumatic circumstances" (rape, mother's health, birth defect), but overall oppose it in "elective circumstances" (too many kids, single, etc). Polls that suggest otherwise (on both sides) generally present implicitly biased questions.

I agree with this statement 100%.

Hahahahahaha.
And allow me to add: Hohohohohohohoho.

Since it has been proven that life begins at conception.....

When?

then yes it is murder.

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Despite not being illegal? Wow, you make up your own words.

Hahahahahaha.
Agreed did we just not go through this

Some people never read :p

And furthermore, if it comes out that new Supreme Court Justice nominee Sam Alito favors overturning Roe v Wade, they think he shouldn't be approved. (http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=19567) They also say that if Democrats oppose him, they would be justified in filibustering his nomination.


Yet another example of how what the right-wing claims is mainstream thought, really isn't. Americans support choice, and depending on which polls you look at, support it overwhelmingly (Gallup is run by a conservative Republican, by the way), but you'd never know it from the news coverage, which always focuses on how sharply divided the country is over the issue.
Most people claim their own views represent the majority because everyone wants to be right, but the US right-wing takes it too far by denouncing those who disagree with them. They not only refuse to admit that the majority of Americans want to keep Roe exactly as it is now, they also try to shut down discussion of the matter with pejorative words like "murder" and implying that people who favor choice have no values or are un-American. It's a bullying tactic, imo.

If they want to change this law, they have only two options: Persuade the majority to change they way they think, or usurp the law and force their opinion upon the rest of us. Since they've failed to persuade the majority, they are attempting to force us. Now, while I support minority opinions that seek to end discrimination or other kinds of abuses, I find the attempts to overturn Roe particularly offensive because Roe does not force anyone to do or not do anything that is against their beliefs. Those who oppose abortion are not forced to have any and are not stopped from trying to persuade others not to have them. But apparently, that's not good enough for some people. Their selfish impatience not only threatens my liberty as a woman, it also threatens privacy-related liberties for the whole country.

BTW, these are the same kinds of people who originally opposed the founding of Planned Parenthood, about a century ago, because contraception was evil and un-American in their view. Planned Parenthood was specifically designed to provide family planning services for the poor. Just mentioning that detail. It's significant to me. Make of it what you like or can.

And allow me to add: Hohohohohohohoho.
http://67.18.37.14/108/141/emo/santa2.gif:D

Why do the Irish? ;)
It comes up now and again but because it was democraticly decided(referendum) and because those who want it just go to britain it doesn't come up much. It's illegal execpt when the mother's life is in danger here.

Most people claim their own views represent the majority because everyone wants to be right, but the US right-wing takes it too far by denouncing those who disagree with them.

And the US left-wing doesn't take it to far?

Since it has been proven that life begins at conception.....


then yes it is murder.I take it you oppose the death penalty too.

It is? Then I'm leaving, too.
"Play the game by my rules, or I'll take my marbles and go home?" Tsk. I would have expected better of you! :(

I take it you oppose the death penalty too.

Death penalty for convicted murderers no.

However, I do oppose abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake as well as rape and incest.

Death penalty for convicted murderers no.

However, I do oppose abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake as well as rape and incest.
But, according to your logic, the death penalty would be murder, since it is the taking of a life. There is no mucky debate about whether a convicted murder is beyond the stage of conception.

My previous post turned into a speech that wasn't directly answering the question, so in re the Alito question:

I think that no lawyer or jurist should be appointed to the Supreme Court, or any court, if it is known that he/she is not an impartial judge of the law. It doesn't matter to me what the issue is -- if we know in advance that a judge will always decide for or against a given issue, they are not impartial and should not be a judge.

Impartiality is not the same as not having an opinion. Alito could be personally anti-abortion and still be impartial when judging cases and the law. We can only judge by his record whether he has a history of impartiality. It seems, at first sight, that his record indicates that he may not be impartial on certain issues. If the Dems believe he will seek to use the matters that are brought before him to overturn an established law (i.e. legislate from the bench), then they should block him.

But, according to your logic, the death penalty would be murder, since it is the taking of a life. There is no mucky debate about whether a convicted murder is beyond the stage of conception.
I like how you tied that in
:fluffle: :fluffle:

And the US left-wing doesn't take it to far?
First, for the record, I'm not a left-winger, and if they've been trying to silence dissent, then I'll criticize them, too.

However, I don't think they have been trying to silence dissent (although I grant you, there are a lot of intolerant individuals on both sides). I think they have been arguing in favor of common rights against a minority who wish to take rights away from some people, whether they be women, gays, religious minorities, immigrants or what have you.

The whole point of US-style democracy is that the state will not impose a way of living or way of thinking on the people. By that same token, over the first 150-200 years of the nation, it was decided that communities and individuals would also not be allowed to impose ways of living/thinking on others. In other words, it was decided by social and political practice that the only right no American has is the right to oppress others. That's why it's illegal to refuse to hire someone or rent to someone on the basis of race, etc. If that means that some people have to tolerate the existence of things they think are wrong, that's just tough on them, as long as they are not forced to participate themselves.

First, for the record, I'm not a left-winger, and if they've been trying to silence dissent, then I'll criticize them, too.

However, I don't think they have been trying to silence dissent (although I grant you, there are a lot of intolerant individuals on both sides). I think they have been arguing in favor of common rights against a minority who wish to take rights away from some people, whether they be women, gays, religious minorities, immigrants or what have you.

The whole point of US-style democracy is that the state will not impose a way of living or way of thinking on the people. By that same token, over the first 150-200 years of the nation, it was decided that communities and individuals would also not be allowed to impose ways of living/thinking on others. In other words, it was decided by social and political practice that the only right no American has is the right to oppress others. That's why it's illegal to refuse to hire someone or rent to someone on the basis of race, etc. If that means that some people have to tolerate the existence of things they think are wrong, that's just tough on them, as long as they are not forced to participate themselves.


Hear, hear! It would have been nice if we'd learned those lessons earlier than we did, but we are certainly striving to live up to those high ideals now.

Hear, hear! It would have been nice if we'd learned those lessons earlier than we did, but we are certainly striving to live up to those high ideals now.
Some of us are, at any rate. ;)

Most people claim their own views represent the majority because everyone wants to be right, but the US right-wing takes it too far by denouncing those who disagree with them. They not only refuse to admit that the majority of Americans want to keep Roe exactly as it is now, they also try to shut down discussion of the matter with pejorative words like "murder" and implying that people who favor choice have no values or are un-American. It's a bullying tactic, imo.



Just the opposite imho!



If they want to change this law, they have only two options: Persuade the majority to change they way they think, or usurp the law and force their opinion upon the rest of us. Since they've failed to persuade the majority, they are attempting to force us. Now, while I support minority opinions that seek to end discrimination or other kinds of abuses, I find the attempts to overturn Roe particularly offensive because Roe does not force anyone to do or not do anything that is against their beliefs. Those who oppose abortion are not forced to have any and are not stopped from trying to persuade others not to have them. But apparently, that's not good enough for some people. Their selfish impatience not only threatens my liberty as a woman, it also threatens privacy-related liberties for the whole country.



Just like the liberals persuasions and forceful teachings have done in the past 50 years. Now it's time for conservative values to be persuaded and forcefully taught in schools for the next 50 years. Then it's your turn again! The never ending battle takes turns. How's that for fair? We all want our side to win, how surprising.




BTW, these are the same kinds of people who originally opposed the founding of Planned Parenthood, about a century ago, because contraception was evil and un-American in their view. Planned Parenthood was specifically designed to provide family planning services for the poor. Just mentioning that detail. It's significant to me. Make of it what you like or can.



Instead of teaching abstinism and being able to afford, teach moral values, responsobilities and proper upbringing of a child, the evil Planned Parenthood hands out condoms and contraceptions. That's their demented and distorted solution to the problem. Sheeeesh!

Instead of teaching abstinism and being able to afford, teach moral values, responsobilities and proper upbringing of a child, the evil Planned Parenthood hands out condoms and contraceptions. That's their demented and distorted solution to the problem. Sheeeesh!
Face it--on this subject, your side is losing the battle of ideas, despite better funding and greater publicity for at least the last 25 years. And my bet is that the gap will continue to widen, just as it's been widening on issues like same-sex marriage and civil rights.

Just because theyre losing doesnt mean that theyre not right. Of course people are going to support something like this. Otherwise, how would they all be able to have indiscriminate sex and then kill the babies theyre making? And nobody wants to risk their life going to illegal ones.:cool:

Just because theyre losing doesnt mean that theyre not right. Of course people are going to support something like this. Otherwise, how would they all be able to have indiscriminate sex and then kill the babies theyre making? And nobody wants to risk their life going to illegal ones.:cool:
I really hope you're being sarcastic.

Amburg: How do you feel about contraception? My wife and I can't afford a child right now, should we practice abstinance too?
Second, it has been shown time and time again that comprehensive sex education is more effective at preventing pregnacies than abstinance only.

Fass: Just a quick correction, the gap of people who favor same-sex marriage is closing as we catch up with those who want to ban it. (At least in the US)

Abortion is murder and murder is a crime. Logic and common sense will take you far in life folks. Good day!

Jerking off is murder and murder is a crime. Logic and common sense will take you far in life folks. Good day!

Jerking off is murder and murder is a crime. Logic and common sense will take you far in life folks. Good day!

:eek:
Oh *&$#... Guess I better turn myself in for my wasted teen years.


:p

Face it--on this subject, your side is losing the battle of ideas, despite better funding and greater publicity for at least the last 25 years. And my bet is that the gap will continue to widen, just as it's been widening on issues like same-sex marriage and civil rights.


Of course, it has to happen. It is written in the Holy Scriptures. But I will continue to fight it even if I am to be persecuted and killed for it. Upon Jesus's return then true love, life peace and justice will begin and remain forever. Amen!

Instead of teaching abstinism and being able to afford, teach moral values, responsobilities and proper upbringing of a child, the evil Planned Parenthood hands out condoms and contraceptions. That's their demented and distorted solution to the problem. Sheeeesh!

You do realize that the states that use abstinence only education have higher teen pregnancy rates, right?

Amburg: How do you feel about contraception? My wife and I can't afford a child right now, should we practice abstinance too?
Second, it has been shown time and time again that comprehensive sex education is more effective at preventing pregnacies than abstinance only.

Fass: Just a quick correction, the gap of people who favor same-sex marriage is closing as we catch up with those who want to ban it. (At least in the US)


You could have waited a year or two to get married. That way you would avoid having sex and risking having a child you could not afford at that time. Get married and have children when you are financially better off. Why do babies have to suffer for the parents irresponsibilities? WILL POWER works wonders!

You do realize that the states that use abstinence only education have higher teen pregnancy rates, right?


If parents and teachers were truely doing their jobs (as mine did), then this wouldn't even be an issue.

If parents and teachers were truely doing their jobs (as mine did), then this wouldn't even be an issue.
That or it may be indicating a problem in how absinance ONLY education works

I am not saying not to make a good case for absinance ... but we should be teaching safty in all its forms so the most good can come out of whatever decision they end up making

anything less would be irresponsable

Of course, it has to happen. It is written in the Holy Scriptures. But I will continue to fight it even if I am to be persecuted and killed for it. Upon Jesus's return then true love, life peace and justice will begin and remain forever. Amen!
See, this is what I've been on about. People so in love with their own viewpoint that they refuse to share the world with people who don't agree with them. Arnburg is judging the entire world by the rules of his or her religion. Well, I don't practice that religion and don't intend to live by its rules.

Arnburg might say that I will be damned for that, but that's according to his/her religion and, since I don't follow it, I don't care about any threatened fate under it. Unable to persuade me to follow his/her religion, Arnburg seems to approve of rewriting the laws to match his/her religion, thus trying to force me to live according to it, whether I willingly join or not.

This is what I oppose. It's what the majority of Americans oppose, even religious Americans. Arnburg may claim the right to do this in order to save my soul, but I don't acknowledge that Arnburg has any authority on the subject of souls nor any right to take any action for or against mine, which is mine, mine alone, and my responsibility, come what may. Therefore, I would invite Arnburg, if he/she were trying to overturn Roe, to butt out of my life.

I'm just using Arnburg as a convenient example. I don't mean to accuse Arnburg of anything.

Of course, it has to happen. It is written in the Holy Scriptures. But I will continue to fight it even if I am to be persecuted and killed for it. Upon Jesus's return then true love, life peace and justice will begin and remain forever. Amen!
This phrase also just struck me. There seems among some very fervent believers to be an assumption that non-believers are persecuting and trying to kill them, or threatening to kill them, or that if they don't prevail in their argument they will die because of it. I wonder what gives them this impression. The persecution of the Christians ended with Constantine I. Is it a nostalgia for the age of martyrs? Do they feel that, if their faith is dangerous, it will put them closer to god? But doesn't god know all of the truth? They may believe that he wants them to save other people's souls, but I don't see how they can think that he thinks they are being persecuted nowadays. It's this kind of vehement rhetoric that derails any attempt to have multiple religions learn to tolerate each other.

Arnburg, if you are speaking figuratively, it would be nice to clue the rest of us.

Fass: Just a quick correction, the gap of people who favor same-sex marriage is closing as we catch up with those who want to ban it. (At least in the US)

What do you mean? I don't understand what you're saying there.

What do you mean? I don't understand what you're saying there.
I think UU is saying that the tide is turning in the US as regards opinions on same-sex marriage. The longer it's an issue, the more people support it, and the younger the people polled, the more they support it.

I think UU is saying that the tide is turning in the US as regards opinions on same-sex marriage. The longer it's an issue, the more people support it, and the younger the people polled, the more they support it.

While I may better understand the meaning, I do not understand the relevance, nor why it was addressed to me.

See, this is what I've been on about. People so in love with their own viewpoint that they refuse to share the world with people who don't agree with them. Arnburg is judging the entire world by the rules of his or her religion. Well, I don't practice that religion and don't intend to live by its rules.

Arnburg might say that I will be damned for that, but that's according to his/her religion and, since I don't follow it, I don't care about any threatened fate under it. Unable to persuade me to follow his/her religion, Arnburg seems to approve of rewriting the laws to match his/her religion, thus trying to force me to live according to it, whether I willingly join or not.

This is what I oppose. It's what the majority of Americans oppose, even religious Americans. Arnburg may claim the right to do this in order to save my soul, but I don't acknowledge that Arnburg has any authority on the subject of souls nor any right to take any action for or against mine, which is mine, mine alone, and my responsibility, come what may. Therefore, I would invite Arnburg, if he/she were trying to overturn Roe, to butt out of my life.

I'm just using Arnburg as a convenient example. I don't mean to accuse Arnburg of anything.


I am not the one judging you, I am merely quoting what Jesus and the scriptures say. It is not up to me to judge you, that is up to GOD alone. I am but a simple messenger and humble servent of GOD allmighty!

I am not the one judging you, I am merely quoting what Jesus and the scriptures say. It is not up to me to judge you, that is up to GOD alone. I am but a simple messenger and humble servent of GOD allmighty!
... that or a sucker

This phrase also just struck me. There seems among some very fervent believers to be an assumption that non-believers are persecuting and trying to kill them, or threatening to kill them, or that if they don't prevail in their argument they will die because of it. I wonder what gives them this impression. The persecution of the Christians ended with Constantine I. Is it a nostalgia for the age of martyrs? Do they feel that, if their faith is dangerous, it will put them closer to god? But doesn't god know all of the truth? They may believe that he wants them to save other people's souls, but I don't see how they can think that he thinks they are being persecuted nowadays. It's this kind of vehement rhetoric that derails any attempt to have multiple religions learn to tolerate each other.

Arnburg, if you are speaking figuratively, it would be nice to clue the rest of us.


This is Bible scripture. If you don't read it nor believe it, then of course you will speak as you have. But since I believe in GOD and his word, then I can only speak as I have. What do you expect me to do, ignore GOD, the Bible and it's teachings? What kind of Christian would that make me? Please try to understand.

... that or a sucker



Now who always starts attacking who exactly?

Now who always starts attacking who exactly?
Not attacking ... I just feel like you have been decived
You are more then welcome to have your own opinion of me

Yet another example of how what the right-wing claims is mainstream thought, really isn't. Americans support choice, and depending on which polls you look at, support it overwhelmingly (Gallup is run by a conservative Republican, by the way), but you'd never know it from the news coverage, which always focuses on how sharply divided the country is over the issue.

They claim to be mainstream. Just like how the prominant liberals claim to be mainstream. Both are far removed from the mainstream. Most of the polls I see show that Americans tend to take a middle ground on abortion. Most of them think that abortion laws currently are too liberal and favor more restrictions. Most also think abortion should remain legal. Most would rather have too few restrictions then too many so when asked if they would rather keep Roe or have it overturned they say to keep it. But all this said, you can't pretend the pro-lifers are some fringe group. They are only modestly smaller then the pro-choice side.

One more thing. I don't see how its any better for Democrates to have ideological requirements for judges then it is for Republicans. It's funny how they both say judges should not be picked based on ideology, but that they both demand that justices of their ideology be picked.

I'll give you people my opinion and then run away like a cowardly fool. (who can't spell)

Pros about abortion
baby's soul probably goes right to heaven
helps keep down the population
natural selection yay Darwin

Cons about abortion
killing a human
having a kid may force parent to get life together or fall apart
srews up the culture

I'm completely on the fence.

I'll give you people my opinion and then run away like a cowardly fool. (who can't spell)

Pros about abortion
baby's soul probably goes right to heaven
helps keep down the population
natural selection yay Darwin

Cons about abortion
killing a human
having a kid may force parent to get life together or fall apart
srews up the culture

I'm completely on the fence.
Thoes that fail to understand the true benifits and costs of both sides of the arguement can NEVER make a smart nor informed decision

Sorry this is so long

No, since "murder" is illegal killing, and this is not illegal, nor killing by the by (there's your "perspective" for ya), it's not murder

That totally avoids the argument. Arnburg's point is that (s)he thinks it's morally wrong to have an abortion. Yes, murder is technically defined by law. But that doesn't negate Arnburg's argument, only his/her choice of words. If it was legal to kill someone for looking at you the wrong way and I killed someone isn't it still wrong for me to do so? Besides if you want to get technical one could always counter and say they believe abortion is against God's law. That would fit the dictionary definition.

As much as I want to agree with you, these polls are never really representative of American opinion. The most accurate polls have consistently shown that Americans favor choice in "traumatic circumstances" (rape, mother's health, birth defect), but overall oppose it in "elective circumstances" (too many kids, single, etc). Polls that suggest otherwise (on both sides) generally present implicitly biased questions.

Yes, thats true

....They not only refuse to admit that the majority of Americans want to keep Roe exactly as it is now, they also try to shut down discussion of the matter with pejorative words like "murder" and implying that people who favor choice have no values or are un-American. It's a bullying tactic, imo....
....Those who oppose abortion are not forced to have any and are not stopped from trying to persuade others not to have them. But apparently, that's not good enough for some people. Their selfish impatience not only threatens my liberty as a woman, it also threatens privacy-related liberties for the whole country.


No, the majority of American's want to make abortion more restrictive, so they do not want to keep it exactly how it is, though it is true the majority want to keep it legal. You clearly don't understand the pro-life argument. Pro-lifers view abortion as just as bad as murder. If the goverment was to legalize killing people for looking at you wrong what would you do? Would you support such legislation? I think most of you would oppose it. That's how the issue is seen from the eyes of a pro-lifer. I'm not asking you to agree with the pro-life argument, only to understand it.

My previous post turned into a speech that wasn't directly answering the question, so in re the Alito question:

I think that no lawyer or jurist should be appointed to the Supreme Court, or any court, if it is known that he/she is not an impartial judge of the law. It doesn't matter to me what the issue is -- if we know in advance that a judge will always decide for or against a given issue, they are not impartial and should not be a judge.

Impartiality is not the same as not having an opinion. Alito could be personally anti-abortion and still be impartial when judging cases and the law. We can only judge by his record whether he has a history of impartiality. It seems, at first sight, that his record indicates that he may not be impartial on certain issues. If the Dems believe he will seek to use the matters that are brought before him to overturn an established law (i.e. legislate from the bench), then they should block him.


While your first rant was emotionally charged and showed a clear lack of understanding of the pro-life side, I want to praise your second post. I agree entirely. That's how the court was designed. Sadly though with current politics I'm pessimistic that we will ever see the day where justices no longer legislate from the bench.


You do realize that the states that use abstinence only education have higher teen pregnancy rates, right?


I do not agree with abstience only education, but I haven't seen any evidence linking high teen pregnancy rates to abstience only programs. Just because they exist in the same location doesn't mean it is causitive. I notice the southern states tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates. They tend to have abstience only programs, but they also tend to be warmer. Maybe warmer climates lead to more sex. I don't know. I just like to see some solid evidence linking the two.

Not attacking ... I just feel like you have been decived
You are more then welcome to have your own opinion of me


Or just maybe you have been the one that has been deceived? It works both ways, now does it not?

I do not agree with abstience only education, but I haven't seen any evidence linking high teen pregnancy rates to abstience only programs. Just because they exist in the same location doesn't mean it is causitive. I notice the southern states tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates. They tend to have abstience only programs, but they also tend to be warmer. Maybe warmer climates lead to more sex. I don't know. I just like to see some solid evidence linking the two.

I don't know either. However, what I can tell you is that the UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and abortion in Europe. It also has the most "moral" objectors to sex education, and one of the poorer systems of said education.
Those darned liberals in Sweden and the Netherlands have far fewer problems with this. Strange how giving people facts and letting them make up their own minds seems to help in this one.....
And by the way, it's nothing to do with the weather.

Of course, it has to happen. It is written in the Holy Scriptures. But I will continue to fight it even if I am to be persecuted and killed for it. Upon Jesus's return then true love, life peace and justice will begin and remain forever. Amen!

Jesussaves is that you? I'd say Fcf2, but you don't have his usual prophetic blather. Just the usual evangelical blather.

If parents and teachers were truely doing their jobs (as mine did), then this wouldn't even be an issue.My parents and teachers did their job rather well too, but it wasn't abstinence only classes.

That totally avoids the argument. Arnburg's point is that (s)he thinks it's morally wrong to have an abortion. Yes, murder is technically defined by law. But that doesn't negate Arnburg's argument, only his/her choice of words. If it was legal to kill someone for looking at you the wrong way and I killed someone isn't it still wrong for me to do so? Besides if you want to get technical one could always counter and say they believe abortion is against God's law. That would fit the dictionary definition.
It doesn't avoid the argument--it defines the argument. The only way to define murder in a criminal context is through the law--personal opinions as to what murder involves are irrelevant, and if Arnburg is going to use the term murder in his argument, he is bound by what the law defines it as, and abortion does not fall under that definition, nor should it. All Arnburg has to go on when he tries to define abortion as murder is an emotional argument--science doesn't agree with him and neither does the law. And in a legal sense, if an anti-abortion person wants to argue that abortion is against God's law, my reply is "big fucking deal." Depending on your god, so is eating pork. That's not an acceptable basis for law in a secular society.

Or just maybe you have been the one that has been deceived? It works both ways, now does it not?
Its possible ... but at least I use tools to find out that have been shown to work rather then faith alone

It may not be the right tool but its all I have

Im doing my best now that jackass up there can meet me part way

Most of the polls I see show that Americans tend to take a middle ground on abortion. Most of them think that abortion laws currently are too liberal and favor more restrictions.

Of course, when you talk to them further, you generally find that they don't even know what the current laws are. They usually think that a woman can get an abortion with no problem right up until birth (not true) or even until the third trimester (also not true). Generally, such a person will say, "I think the law should be X." Then, you show them the actual law, and it is pretty much exactly that. Go figure.

Most also think abortion should remain legal. Most would rather have too few restrictions then too many so when asked if they would rather keep Roe or have it overturned they say to keep it. But all this said, you can't pretend the pro-lifers are some fringe group. They are only modestly smaller then the pro-choice side.

The avidly political pro-lifers are a fringe group. Those who think abortion should be made illegal are a fringe group, as are those who think that it should be legal up until birth. As you said, the vast majority of people fall in between. They may dispute the exact details, but most people are, to some degree, pro-choice.

One more thing. I don't see how its any better for Democrates to have ideological requirements for judges then it is for Republicans. It's funny how they both say judges should not be picked based on ideology, but that they both demand that justices of their ideology be picked.

Hypocrisy is fun, ain't it?

I do not agree with abstience only education, but I haven't seen any evidence linking high teen pregnancy rates to abstience only programs. Just because they exist in the same location doesn't mean it is causitive. I notice the southern states tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates. They tend to have abstience only programs, but they also tend to be warmer. Maybe warmer climates lead to more sex. I don't know. I just like to see some solid evidence linking the two.

Actually, if you look closely at the data, teens in areas with abstinence-only education don't seem to have any more or less sex than teens with more comprehensive programs. The difference is that those who do decide to have sex engage in more risky behavior - ie. unprotected sexual contact. Thus, there are more STDs and more teen pregnancies - since the kids that do make the decision to do it aren't using any protection.

Arnburg's point is that (s)he thinks it's morally wrong to have an abortion
You can't legislate subjective morality.

Since it has been proven that life begins at conception.....


then yes it is murder.


Unless it can survive for itself, I don't consider it alive.

Until then, an abortion is more akin to getting a hair cut or lancing a boil.

It doesn't avoid the argument--it defines the argument. The only way to define murder in a criminal context is through the law--personal opinions as to what murder involves are irrelevant, and if Arnburg is going to use the term murder in his argument, he is bound by what the law defines it as, and abortion does not fall under that definition, nor should it. All Arnburg has to go on when he tries to define abortion as murder is an emotional argument--science doesn't agree with him and neither does the law. And in a legal sense, if an anti-abortion person wants to argue that abortion is against God's law, my reply is "big fucking deal." Depending on your god, so is eating pork. That's not an acceptable basis for law in a secular society.


According to this line of thinking, then, slave owners who killed their problem slaves weren't committing murder because at the time it was perfectly legal for them to harvest their property as they saw fit... And Stalin’s killings of hundreds of thousands of undesirables wasn't murder either, because it was government approved, thus, not illegal. Is that the simple and proper definition and intent of the word ‘murder?’ I think not.

Perhaps, "the wrongful causing of death to another individual" would be a better way of defining murder? Yes, yes it would. But of course, that, then, wouldn’t be as useful for the current trivia nuance wanted when the abortion debate comes up, because some just simply don’t like the word 'murder' and they think they’ve said something ‘useful’ by trying to deny the right of their oponents to use the word when they justify such a limited definition of the word… :rolleyes:

Since it has been proven that life begins at conception.....

No, it hasn't. Abortion is not murder any more than war is.

Why do the Irish? ;)
Two words: the Pope.

And the US left-wing doesn't take it to far?
No. They don't denounce people as "America haters" simply for disagreeing with them.

If parents and teachers were truely doing their jobs (as mine did), then this wouldn't even be an issue.
True as this may be, how should the government force parents to do a better job?

Actually, if you look closely at the data, teens in areas with abstinence-only education don't seem to have any more or less sex than teens with more comprehensive programs. The difference is that those who do decide to have sex engage in more risky behavior - ie. unprotected sexual contact. Thus, there are more STDs and more teen pregnancies - since the kids that do make the decision to do it aren't using any protection.


That's not essentially true. The entire concept of comparing pregnancy rates from one state to another as it pertains to a new methodology in teaching a subject (any subject) is badly contrived. The state's OWN pre-methodology rates need to be compared to it's OWN post-methodology rates after the change for any meaningful discussion in regards to the methodologies effectiveness.

I find it quite ironic that the teen-pregnancy rate in America is in a sharp decline in the last five years... It doesn't bode well for the anti-abstinence sexual education argument, seeing as how it's actually working.

I am not the one judging you, I am merely quoting what Jesus and the scriptures say. It is not up to me to judge you, that is up to GOD alone. I am but a simple messenger and humble servent of GOD allmighty!
Okay, but how about my objection to those who seek to rewrite the law to match scripture (where they think it doesn't already)? Setting aside your personal obligation to preach your religious beliefs to others, would you agree with those who would seek to force me to conform to their religion by turning it into secular law, thus leaving me no choice? In other words, do you believe that non-believers should be made to follow your religion's rules, whether they wish to convert or not?

PS: By "judging" I meant measuring, critiquing, drawing conclusions about -- not judging in the biblical sense.

This is Bible scripture. If you don't read it nor believe it, then of course you will speak as you have. But since I believe in GOD and his word, then I can only speak as I have. What do you expect me to do, ignore GOD, the Bible and it's teachings? What kind of Christian would that make me? Please try to understand.
So you're speaking figuratively, or rather, poetically. Okey-doke, then.

It's just that I have met some scary characters who do mean it literally. :eek:

<snip>No, the majority of American's want to make abortion more restrictive, so they do not want to keep it exactly how it is, though it is true the majority want to keep it legal. You clearly don't understand the pro-life argument. Pro-lifers view abortion as just as bad as murder. If the goverment was to legalize killing people for looking at you wrong what would you do? Would you support such legislation? I think most of you would oppose it. That's how the issue is seen from the eyes of a pro-lifer. I'm not asking you to agree with the pro-life argument, only to understand it.



While your first rant was emotionally charged and showed a clear lack of understanding of the pro-life side, I want to praise your second post. I agree entirely. That's how the court was designed. Sadly though with current politics I'm pessimistic that we will ever see the day where justices no longer legislate from the bench.
<snip>
Well, half of your approval is better than none, I suppose. :p

I think the argument here is, in part, whether the pro-life argument represents the majority of Americans. I believe the divide is so close it is extremely difficult to tell. Different polls give conflicting numbers. I'd be happy to approximate and say about 50% want Roe as is, and 50% want Roe with added restrictions on late term abortions and parental notification. Only a small minority want more restrictions than that, and an even tinier minority want abortion to be illegal altogether.

I believe that that tiny, extremist minority is attempting to usurp political and legal processes to push their agenda through, despite majority opposition. They are trying to do this with a combination of political activisim (okay, imo) and a very aggressive and negative response to opposition or dissent, from any source (not okay, imo). They will almost certainly fail, but in the meantime, they can do a lot of damage to our public systems. You will notice that, in the post you didn't like, I did not identify them as "pro-life." They are too extreme to represent that general point of view. I consider these to be the same groups who advocate school prayer (but for only one kind of religion), who describe secularism as being "anti-Christian", who protest things like Halloween and Harry Potter books as being devil worship, and other fringe arguments, all of which display a hostility towards other beliefs and a desire to get their religion established as the official religion and source of law in the US.

For the record, on abortion, I fall on the keep Roe as is side. I would be willing to compromise on late term abortions, except in cases medical necessity, but I oppose mandatory parental notification as I believe that should be a matter between doctors and their patients, even if the patient is a minor (for instance, the doctor may be the first authority figure to know if there is parental abuse).

EDIT: For clarity's sake, I mean a federal standard limiting late term abortions except for medical necessity, and *mandatory* parental notification. I would rather have no such restrictions in the law at all, but if they must be, then I'd like a national standard, not a state-by-state patchwork.

*snip* The persecution of the Christians ended with Constantine I. *snip*

No it isn't. It goes on today. for example:Photo 1 (http://china21.org/simpChinese/news/031503pics/41.htm)
Photo 2 (http://china21.org/simpChinese/news/031503pics/42.htm)
Photo 3 (http://china21.org/simpChinese/news/031503pics/49.htm)
Photo 4 (http://china21.org/simpChinese/news/031503pics/58.htm)
wiki article on chinese house churches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_house_church) please note line 12

wiki article on persecution of christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians)

More relevant stuff at bottom

That enough? Cos I'm sure I could go find lots more....

That's not essentially true. The entire concept of comparing pregnancy rates from one state to another as it pertains to a new methodology in teaching a subject (any subject) is badly contrived. The state's OWN pre-methodology rates need to be compared to it's OWN post-methodology rates after the change for any meaningful discussion in regards to the methodologies effectiveness.

I find it quite ironic that the teen-pregnancy rate in America is in a sharp decline in the last five years... It doesn't bode well for the anti-abstinence sexual education argument, seeing as how it's actually working.
Whats the correlation ratio of number of students in abstinence only classrooms regressed against teen pregnancy rates?

That's not essentially true. The entire concept of comparing pregnancy rates from one state to another as it pertains to a new methodology in teaching a subject (any subject) is badly contrived. The state's OWN pre-methodology rates need to be compared to it's OWN post-methodology rates after the change for any meaningful discussion in regards to the methodologies effectiveness.

This isn't true. If we were talking about one or two areas (and we aren't talking about whole states here, btw, these things are generally more of a county-wide decision), that might be true. As it is, we are comparing many, many areas (even including ones outside the US). While it is certainly possible (as it is with any correlative studies) that there is some other unifying factor between these vastly differing areas, it is highly unlikely.

I find it quite ironic that the teen-pregnancy rate in America is in a sharp decline in the last five years...

I don't. There are many more ways for young teenagers to find out about and access protection if they decide to have sex - even with idiots trying to keep them uneducated.

It doesn't bode well for the anti-abstinence sexual education argument, seeing as how it's actually working.

This statement assumes that most of the US is actually using abstinence-only education, which is patently untrue. The vast majority of the US teaches comprehensive education, perhaps with an emphasis on abstience, but with all the bases covered. The push for "abstinence-only" education is very, very new indeed - and very, very few public schools (in the scheme of things) have adopted it.

No it isn't. It goes on today. for example:Photo 1 (http://china21.org/simpChinese/news/031503pics/41.htm)
Photo 2 (http://china21.org/simpChinese/news/031503pics/42.htm)
Photo 3 (http://china21.org/simpChinese/news/031503pics/49.htm)
Photo 4 (http://china21.org/simpChinese/news/031503pics/58.htm)
wiki article on chinese house churches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_house_church) please note line 12

wiki article on persecution of christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians)

More relevant stuff at bottom

That enough? Cos I'm sure I could go find lots more....
I'll give you the communists (though they target(ed) ALL religions, not just Christians), and I'll also give you isolated incidents with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups (though they're more focused against Jews), but that wiki article is marked with bias warnings, so you might want to find a different source if you're arguing that radical Christians aren't being paranoid.

I still maintain that Christian churches, as a group and individually for most of them, are so large, rich, politically connected, and socially pervasive that arguments that Christians are endangered are simply not supportable. The churches are perfectly capable of protecting any of their members who may find themselves in trouble. This is completely different from the period before Constantine's conversion, when Christians were the social/political scapegoat of choice for most of the powerful governments of the day.

EDIT: Bottom line: You won your fight; quit trying to claim to be the under-dog.

This statement assumes that most of the US is actually using abstinence-only education, which is patently untrue. The vast majority of the US teaches comprehensive education, perhaps with an emphasis on abstience, but with all the bases covered. The push for "abstinence-only" education is very, very new indeed - and very, very few public schools (in the scheme of things) have adopted it.

It assumes nothing more than the other assumption, that abstinence sex-education is harmful, both are assumptions with statistics that don't talk about the topic at hand. Teen pregnancy is going down, the naysayers have not proved their point.

It assumes nothing more than the other assumption, that abstinence sex-education is harmful, both are assumptions with statistics that don't talk about the topic at hand. Teen pregnancy is going down, the naysayers have not proved their point.
Simple get the stats and do a regression analysis on it

Then add the alternitive and see how much better it refines the fit

It assumes nothing more than the other assumption, that abstinence sex-education is harmful, both are assumptions with statistics that don't talk about the topic at hand. Teen pregnancy is going down, the naysayers have not proved their point.

Logic is not your strong point, my dear.

Assuming that most of the US is teaching abstinence-only sex education is making a patently false assumption.

Meanwhile, no one is assuming that abstinence sex-education is harmful. However, the statistics clearly back up the idea that abstinence-only sex education is very harmful. Students in such classes, on average, enage in much more risky sexual behavior. Why? They don't know how risky it is! They are more likely to have unprotected sex of all sorts. Often it is anal or oral, since they think that it "doesn't count", but they tend to have unprotected vaginal sex as well. Why? They don't know about the protections!

Meanwhile, you are correct that teen pregnancy is going down. But guess what? The vast majority of school systems in the US teach a comprehensive sex-education program, not an abstinence-only sex education program. Thus, there is no logical way to correlate abstinence-only education with lowered teen pregnancy rates.

I'll give you the communists (though they target(ed) ALL religions, not just Christians), and I'll also give you isolated incidents with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups (though they're more focused against Jews), but that wiki article is marked with bias warnings, so you might want to find a different source if you're arguing that radical Christians aren't being paranoid.

Yeh, I know, but it was the first and easiest thing to hand.

[QUOTE=MuravyetsI still maintain that Christian churches, as a group and individually for most of them, are so large, rich, politically connected, and socially pervasive that arguments that Christians are endangered are simply not supportable. The churches are perfectly capable of protecting any of their members who may find themselves in trouble. This is completely different from the period before Constantine's conversion, when Christians were the social/political scapegoat of choice for most of the powerful governments of the day.

EDIT: Bottom line: You won your fight; quit trying to claim to be the under-dog.[/QUOTE]

But only for those in rich powerful countries like u.s, england, france etc. There are countries like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Sudan that are not like that.

Logic is not your strong point, my dear.

Assuming that most of the US is teaching abstinence-only sex education is making a patently false assumption.

Meanwhile, no one is assuming that abstinence sex-education is harmful. However, the statistics clearly back up the idea that abstinence-only sex education is very harmful. Students in such classes, on average, enage in much more risky sexual behavior. Why? They don't know how risky it is! They are more likely to have unprotected sex of all sorts. Often it is anal or oral, since they think that it "doesn't count", but they tend to have unprotected vaginal sex as well. Why? They don't know about the protections!

Meanwhile, you are correct that teen pregnancy is going down. But guess what? The vast majority of school systems in the US teach a comprehensive sex-education program, not an abstinence-only sex education program. Thus, there is no logical way to correlate abstinence-only education with lowered teen pregnancy rates.

We've seen no statistical evidence presented here to the eventuality of abstinence sex-education at all, exclusive abstinence lesson or combined lessons, it doesn’t matter. No actual evidence has been produced here, none qualified to answer the question anyway.

Now, what part of the word 'assumption' don't you get my dear? Think it through my young grasshopper, we can wait for it... You assume an answer you think you will get. So now, go get the proof. Discourteous remarks do not prove you point for you, you’ll have to find evidence to do that.

:rolleyes:

We've seen no statistical evidence presented here to the eventuality of abstinence sex-education at all, exclusive abstinence lesson or combined lessons, it doesn’t matter. No actual evidence has been produced here, none qualified to answer the question anyway.

Try looking up the statistics on the WHO webpage, or even the CDC.

Now, what part of the word 'assumption' don't you get my dear? Think it through my young grasshopper, we can wait for it... You assume an answer you think you will get.

No, you don't. Assuming the conclusion is illogical and will get you nowhere. You do have to make assumptions at the beginning of any study/logical discussion/etc., but the outcome cannot be one of them. The idea that abstinence-only education is harmful is a conclusion drawn from statistics (which can be found on the WHO and CDC webpages), not an assumption made at the beginning.

Yeh, I know, but it was the first and easiest thing to hand.



But only for those in rich powerful countries like u.s, england, france etc. There are countries like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Sudan that are not like that.
Ah-ah-ah (with finger shake), don't claim persecution just because you (generic "you" meaning Christianity in general) lack the vision and initiative to counter your competition.

First: Christian churches are international organizations that could easily (a) assist their members living under hostile regimes and (b) crowbar their way into those societies from the outside over time, through charities, education, etc. Therefore, if Christians are being persecuted in those countries, maybe they should complain to their own church organizations for not helping them out.

Second: [EDIT] TWO of the countries you named are currently dominated by Islam, but have been the targets of international missionaries for many years. However, none of them was originally either a Christian or a Muslim country. In fact, they were all originally pagan/animist (yes, including Arabia back in the day -- after all, they had to be something before their prophet came along; a lot of them were animists). As a pagan/animist, pardon me for being less than sympathetic to one powerful colonialist invader's suffering at the hands of another powerful colonialist invader.

Third: Again, as you list only countries currently dominated by Islam, I would point out that radical Muslims dislike anyone who isn't a Muslim, not just Christians, therefore it is a bit weak to claim that *Christians* are being persecuted specifically. You're just part of a big faceless crowd for such intolerant types. Similarly, communist China does not single out Christians but persecutes all religions equally. Again, an argument for specific persecution of Christians cannot be supported.

Ah-ah-ah (with finger shake), don't claim persecution just because you (generic "you" meaning Christianity in general) lack the vision and initiative to counter your competition.

First: Christian churches are international organizations that could easily (a) assist their members living under hostile regimes and (b) crowbar their way into those societies from the outside over time, through charities, education, etc. Therefore, if Christians are being persecuted in those countries, maybe they should complain to their own church organizations for not helping them out.

Second: [EDIT] TWO of the countries you named are currently dominated by Islam, but have been the targets of international missionaries for many years. However, none of them was originally either a Christian or a Muslim country. In fact, they were all originally pagan/animist (yes, including Arabia back in the day -- after all, they had to be something before their prophet came along; a lot of them were animists). As a pagan/animist, pardon me for being less than sympathetic to one powerful colonialist invader's suffering at the hands of another powerful colonialist invader.

Third: Again, as you list only countries currently dominated by Islam, I would point out that radical Muslims dislike anyone who isn't a Muslim, not just Christians, therefore it is a bit weak to claim that *Christians* are being persecuted specifically. You're just part of a big faceless crowd for such intolerant types. Similarly, communist China does not single out Christians but persecutes all religions equally. Again, an argument for specific persecution of Christians cannot be supported.

Was I talking about people being persecuted in this country? I don't think so. And also not all churches are connected. Depending on denomination or other factors churches can be independent, run from a regional level or run from a national level. So what about the independents? Hm, I think churches do the best they can to support, but they consist of humans who are imperfect and have a finite amount of means. Plus, it's not like they could all go out there and defend them from mobs? I think they do complain, but some do not want international help, they want to work it out their own way because otherwise they get accused of being puppets, or of accepting help for ulterior motives.

What does it matter what the country's religion is? Shouldn't everyone be allowed to practice their religion (unless of course it consists of violating othe r rights like right to life etc.) Why should you be allowed to dictate my religion to me? Why should you be allowed to persecute me for it?

Also you just said a general comment that Christians weren't being persecuted anymore, you didn't add conditions that it had to be just them. And you are accusing me for being intolerant without knowing me *rolls eyes*

Death penalty for convicted murderers no.

However, I do oppose abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake as well as rape and incest.
Yet you would have no problem shooting a captured prisoner through the "back of skull (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9855634&postcount=166)"?

Original post of same message (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9855414&postcount=153).

*CanuckHeaven* senses a disturbance in Corny's moral high ground.:eek:

It doesn't avoid the argument--it defines the argument. The only way to define murder in a criminal context is through the law--personal opinions as to what murder involves are irrelevant, and if Arnburg is going to use the term murder in his argument, he is bound by what the law defines it as, and abortion does not fall under that definition, nor should it. All Arnburg has to go on when he tries to define abortion as murder is an emotional argument--science doesn't agree with him and neither does the law. And in a legal sense, if an anti-abortion person wants to argue that abortion is against God's law, my reply is "big fucking deal." Depending on your god, so is eating pork. That's not an acceptable basis for law in a secular society.

Well I agree that Anburg didn't really make an argument except to call it murder. I don't think this is what you mean to be saying, but when you speak like that you sound like you think it is okay simply because its legal. It scares me that people actually think this way (not saying you do). I feel its important that we don't blindly trust our legal system to define right and wrong. There are a lot of people out there that think just because something is legal it is okay (there are also people who think just because its illegal its wrong). I find this quite scary that some people rely so heavily on government for moral guidance.

Well, half of your approval is better than none, I suppose. :p

I think the argument here is, in part, whether the pro-life argument represents the majority of Americans. I believe the divide is so close it is extremely difficult to tell. Different polls give conflicting numbers. I'd be happy to approximate and say about 50% want Roe as is, and 50% want Roe with added restrictions on late term abortions and parental notification. Only a small minority want more restrictions than that, and an even tinier minority want abortion to be illegal altogether.

I believe that that tiny, extremist minority is attempting to usurp political and legal processes to push their agenda through, despite majority opposition. They are trying to do this with a combination of political activisim (okay, imo) and a very aggressive and negative response to opposition or dissent, from any source (not okay, imo). They will almost certainly fail, but in the meantime, they can do a lot of damage to our public systems. You will notice that, in the post you didn't like, I did not identify them as "pro-life." They are too extreme to represent that general point of view. I consider these to be the same groups who advocate school prayer (but for only one kind of religion), who describe secularism as being "anti-Christian", who protest things like Halloween and Harry Potter books as being devil worship, and other fringe arguments, all of which display a hostility towards other beliefs and a desire to get their religion established as the official religion and source of law in the US.

For the record, on abortion, I fall on the keep Roe as is side. I would be willing to compromise on late term abortions, except in cases medical necessity, but I oppose mandatory parental notification as I believe that should be a matter between doctors and their patients, even if the patient is a minor (for instance, the doctor may be the first authority figure to know if there is parental abuse).

EDIT: For clarity's sake, I mean a federal standard limiting late term abortions except for medical necessity, and *mandatory* parental notification. I would rather have no such restrictions in the law at all, but if they must be, then I'd like a national standard, not a state-by-state patchwork.

Okay, I think I can understand where you are coming from better now. I think part of the problem with the statistics is a lot of people don't know where they fall. Some people think if there is even one circumstance you accept abortion in, then you are pro-choice. While others think if you want to further restrict it (even though you agree with aboriton) it makes you pro-life. I don't think either the radical pro-life or pro-choice groups are going to be very accepting towards such imbetween individuals.

In case you haven't guessed I am strongly pro-life. I'm against abortion because I believe that human life is equally valuable at all stages. I admit that I find it difficult to defend why. But I also can't think of a good defense as to why the life of a child is valuable either except that I strongly feel it to be so. And weather the baby is inside or outside the womb has allways seemed like an arbritrary place to define things. I don't see what the big deal is about a mother suffocating her baby after giving birth to it versus killing it before it has been fully delivered. I realize that most abortions occur earlier then this, but all the cut offs except for conception just seem extremely arbirtrary. But anyway, my point is that I don't oppose abortion because I want to force my religion on others. I oppose it only because I want to protect human life.

I feel sort of offended when I am accussed of trying to force my religion on people for a few reasons.

1. I was pro-life before I became a Christian so find it offensive that someone would assume we are all Christians (granted that nearly all are).

2. I am adamently opposed to legislating religion and forcing religion on others and am anoyed that I am accused of this (I'm against ID and mandatory school prayer).

3. The argument that we are trying to force religion on others completly misses the point. I also think that its wrong to kill someone because of their race. My religion also teaches this is wrong. But that doesn't negate my opposition to such killing.

Well I agree that Anburg didn't really make an argument except to call it murder. I don't think this is what you mean to be saying, but when you speak like that you sound like you think it is okay simply because its legal. It scares me that people actually think this way (not saying you do). I feel its important that we don't blindly trust our legal system to define right and wrong. There are a lot of people out there that think just because something is legal it is okay (there are also people who think just because its illegal its wrong). I find this quite scary that some people rely so heavily on government for moral guidance.The step I left out was that murder involves, by definition, the killing of a person, and a fetus isn't a person, especially in the first trimester. In order for abortion to be murder, you have to make the fetus the equal of a living human being, and no matter how you try to do that, using reason or logic or science, it just doesn't happen. There's no way to make that leap except by faith, and if we're talking about calling an action a crime that is traditionally punished capitally, then there better be a whole helluva of a lot more backing up that definition than faith.

Was I talking about people being persecuted in this country? I don't think so. And also not all churches are connected. Depending on denomination or other factors churches can be independent, run from a regional level or run from a national level. So what about the independents? Hm, I think churches do the best they can to support, but they consist of humans who are imperfect and have a finite amount of means. Plus, it's not like they could all go out there and defend them from mobs? I think they do complain, but some do not want international help, they want to work it out their own way because otherwise they get accused of being puppets, or of accepting help for ulterior motives.

What does it matter what the country's religion is? Shouldn't everyone be allowed to practice their religion (unless of course it consists of violating othe r rights like right to life etc.) Why should you be allowed to dictate my religion to me? Why should you be allowed to persecute me for it?

Also you just said a general comment that Christians weren't being persecuted anymore, you didn't add conditions that it had to be just them. And you are accusing me for being intolerant without knowing me *rolls eyes*
Touched a nerve, have I? Sorry about that. I'm not arguing in favor of anyone being persecuted by anyone. On the other hand, it's not my fault if some Christian sects won't lend a hand to help others who are in trouble.

It's true, for instance, that Christians are suffering persecution in Sudan, but so are animists, both by Muslim extremists. So, in the context of this conversation, I ask are the Mulsim extremists persecuting both groups because they are both not Muslim, or are they persecuting Christians, and then also, separately, persecuting animists, and it just so happens they're doing both at the same time? To me it seems that *Christian* is less a target than *non-Muslim* in that country.

And as for things happening in this country (by which I'm guessing you mean the US), remember that we started out talking about US Christians and US law issues, and I was talking about US Christian extremists claiming that they are in danger somehow or that non-believers are trying to attack their religion somehow, right here in the US. We've already established that Arnburg was speaking poetically when he/she said something about being persecuted or killed for one's beliefs, yet you seem to be determined to prove that it's a fact.

I, however, say that, as Christianity in all its forms is one of the dominant organized religions in the world, it would be damned hard for anyone to persecute it, as persecution is typically done from a position of superior power. The churches are a superior power. Only the other major religions can match they kind of power the churches hold, and it is your bad luck, as well as many other people's, that at this moment in history, a segment of the Islamic world seems determined to persecute others, including you. But if the various Christian sects would stand together and help each other, instead of ignoring or fighting with each other, there might be fewer Christians left stranded in hostile territories.

But none of this is on topic. The topic is about American attitudes towards abortion, and this sub-topic is about my assertion that there is a radical Christian minority in the US seeking to impose its beliefs onto secular law. If they believe they are being persecuted in the US, then persecution might be germane, but persecution of anyone in other countries has nothing to do with it.

Yet you would have no problem shooting a captured prisoner through the "back of skull (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9855634&postcount=166)"?

Original post of same message (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9855414&postcount=153).

*CanuckHeaven* senses a disturbance in Corny's moral high ground.:eek:

Your mixing up a time of war against irregulars and laws. Don't make the same mistake again.

<snip> I feel sort of offended when I am accussed of trying to force my religion on people for a few reasons.

1. I was pro-life before I became a Christian so find it offensive that someone would assume we are all Christians (granted that nearly all are).

2. I am adamently opposed to legislating religion and forcing religion on others and am anoyed that I am accused of this (I'm against ID and mandatory school prayer).

3. The argument that we are trying to force religion on others completly misses the point. I also think that its wrong to kill someone because of their race. My religion also teaches this is wrong. But that doesn't negate my opposition to such killing.
Well, as you can tell, I am strongly pro-choice, for personal ethical reasons that have nothing to do with religion. My position is this: Through most of pregnancy, the fetus cannot survive without the mother's body supporting it. If she stops living, it stops living. During that time, her responsibility for its existence is sole and absolute. Therefore, her authority over its existence must also be sole and absolute. Anything less than authority equal to responsibility would be unjust to the woman. During the third trimester, the fetus starts becoming viable, meaning that if she gave birth prematurely, it might have a chance to survive on its own. Her responsibility to continue its life is diminished, so her authority over whether to continue its life should also diminish. Parents' authority over their children continues to diminish as the children become increasingly able to be responsible for themselves until finally, the parents have no legal authority over their children at all (and the children are deemed to be adults).

To me, the argument that the fetus has a right to life that supersedes the mother's right to self-determination in her life is offensive because, to me, it gives another person (the fetus) the right to use the mother's body for its own purposes (gestation) in a manner that puts her at risk (women still die in pregnancy and childbirth every year in the US) whether she is willing or not. This would treat the woman as less of a citizen, less of a human, than the fetus. It would turn pregnancy into almost a form of slavery that could be avoided only by refusing ever to become pregnant.

Now, saying all this, the question of when life begins is irrelevant to me. In my opinion, abortion is killing. It is a sad and terrible thing. It is sometimes necessary to do it, and the only person who has the right to make that decision is the woman who is facing the necessity.

BTW, I'm a woman (approaching that "certain age" (dammit)), so this is an issue I've thought about and questioned myself about quite a lot over quite a bit of time.

As to being accused of forcing your religion on others, I have tried to be clear that I see only a small, extremist minority within the Christian community trying to do this. Plenty of Christians speak out against them doing this. There is no rule that says, just because you're a Christian too, you have to let yourself be smeared by their intolerant behavior.

Polls show people place far too much trust in polls and will believe just about anything told to them by ubiquitous flickering boxes.

Abortion's a personal decision and nobody's business but the host's.
That said, using it for birth control is pretty damned stupid.

Your mixing up a time of war against irregulars and laws. Don't make the same mistake again.
Kinda sounds like a threat?

Regardless of your feeble attempt to justify murdering someone by shooting them in the back of the head, you want others to believe that you have sound Christian morals.

You think that abortion is equivalent to murder (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9871294&postcount=35), yet shooting an unarmed prisoner in the back of the head is okay?

I think if anyone is mistaken, it is you.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You'll need to prove that it's murder first.
It's not that fallacy. That falacy is a falacy of concluding causation from subsequence. That is, if A happens after B, then A caused B. Saying "abortion is murder and murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong" contains no logical fallacies, just two assumptions that one may or may not agree with.

Edit: OH yeah, it's got a semantic component to it. Obviously by murder he doesn't mean 'unlawful killing'.

Yet another example of how what the right-wing claims is mainstream thought, really isn't. Americans support choice, and depending on which polls you look at, support it overwhelmingly (Gallup is run by a conservative Republican, by the way), but you'd never know it from the news coverage, which always focuses on how sharply divided the country is over the issue.

I'd like to know just how many people were polled in this issue.

I, however, say that, as Christianity in all its forms is one of the dominant organized religions in the world, it would be damned hard for anyone to persecute it, as persecution is typically done from a position of superior power. The churches are a superior power. Only the other major religions can match they kind of power the churches hold, and it is your bad luck, as well as many other people's, that at this moment in history, a segment of the Islamic world seems determined to persecute others, including you. But if the various Christian sects would stand together and help each other, instead of ignoring or fighting with each other, there might be fewer Christians left stranded in hostile territories.


There is something you should read here if you think that is the case

For most citizens of Iraq, the invasion meant the end of tyranny. For one group, however, it meant a new start: the country’s historic Christian community. When the war stopped, persecution by Islamists, held in check by Saddam, started.

At a church in Basra I visited a month after the war ended, the women complained of attacks against them for not wearing the Islamic veil. I saw many Christian-owned shops that had been firebombed, with many of the owners killed for exercising their legal right to sell alcohol. Two years and many church attacks later, Iraq may still be occupied by Christian foreign powers, but the Islamist plan to ethnically cleanse Iraq of its nearly 2,000-year-old Assyrian and Armenian Christian communities is reaching fruition.

There is nothing unusual about the persecution of Iraqi Christians, or the unwillingness of other Christians to help them. Rising nationalism and fundamentalism around the world have meant that Christianity is going back to its roots as the religion of the persecuted. There are now more than 300 million Christians who are either threatened with violence or legally discriminated against simply because of their faith — more than any other religion. Christians are no longer, as far as I am aware, thrown to the lions. But from China, North Korea and Malaysia, through India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they are subjected to legalised discrimination, violence, imprisonment, relocation and forced conversion. Even in supposedly Christian Europe, Christianity has become the most mocked religion, its followers treated with public suspicion and derision and sometimes — such as the would-be EU commissioner Rocco Buttiglione — hounded out of political office.

I am no Christian, but rather a godless atheist whose soul doesn’t want to be saved, thank you. I may not believe in the man with the white beard, but I do believe that all persecution is wrong. The trouble is that the trendies who normally champion human rights seem to think persecution is fine, so long as it’s only against Christians. While Muslims openly help other Muslims, Christians helping Christians has become as taboo as jingoistic nationalism.

On the face of it, the idea of Christians facing serious persecution seems as far-fetched as a carpenter saving humanity. Christianity is the world’s most followed religion, with two billion believers, and by far its most powerful. It is the most popular faith in six of the seven continents, and in both of the world’s two biggest economies, the US and Europe. Seven of the G8 richest industrial nations are majority Christian, as are four out of five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The cheek-turners control the vast majority of the world’s weapons of mass destruction.

When I bumped into George Bush in the breakfast room of the US embassy in Brussels last month, standing right behind me were two men in uniform carrying the little black ‘nuclear football’, containing the codes to enable the world’s most powerful Christian to unleash the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal. Christians claiming persecution seem as credible as Bill Gates pleading poverty. But just as Christian-majority armies control Iraq as it ethnically cleanses itself of its Christian community, so the power of Christian countries is of little help to the Christian persecuted where most Christians now live: the Third World.

Across the Islamic world, Christians are systematically discriminated against and persecuted. Saudi Arabia — the global fountain of religious bigotry — bans churches, public Christian worship, the Bible and the sale of Christmas cards, and stops non-Muslims from entering Mecca. Christians are regularly imprisoned and tortured on trumped-up charges of drinking, blaspheming or Bible-bashing, as some British citizens have found. Just last month, furthermore, Saudi Arabia announced that only Muslims can become citizens.

The Copts of Egypt make up half the Christians in the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity. They inhabited the land before the Islamic conquest, and still make up a fifth of the population. By law they are banned from being president of the Islamic Republic of Egypt or attending Al Azhar University, and severely restricted from joining the police and army. By practice they are banned from holding any high political or commercial position. Under the 19th-century Hamayouni decrees, Copts must get permission from the president to build or repair churches — but he usually refuses. Mosques face no such controls.

Government-controlled TV broadcasts anti-Copt propaganda, while giving no airtime to Copts. It is illegal for Muslims to convert to Christianity, but legal for Christians to convert to Islam. Christian girls — and even the wives of Christian priests — are abducted and forcibly converted to Islam, recently prompting mass demonstrations. A report by Freedom House in Washington concludes: ‘The cumulative effect of these threats creates an atmosphere of persecution and raises fears that during the 21st century the Copts may have a vastly diminished presence in their homelands.’

Fr Drew Christiansen, an adviser to the US Conference of Bishops, recently conducted a study which stated that ‘all over the Middle East, Christians are under pressure. “The cradle of Christianity” is under enormous pressure from demographic decline, the growth of Islamic militancy, official and unofficial discrimination, the Iraq war, the Palestinian Intifada, failed peace policies and political manipulation.’

In the world’s most economically successful Muslim nation, Malaysia, the world’s only deliberate affirmative action programme for a majority population ensures that Muslims are given better access to jobs, housing and education. In the world’s most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, some 10,000 Christians have been killed in the last few years by Muslims trying to Islamify the Moluccas.

In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, most of the five million Christians live as an underclass, doing work such as toilet-cleaning. Under the Hudood ordinances, a Muslim can testify against a non-Muslim in court, but a non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim. Blasphemy laws are abused to persecute Christians. In the last few years, dozens of Christians have been killed in bomb and gun attacks on churches and Christian schools.

In Nigeria, 12 states have introduced Sharia law, which affects Christians as much as Muslims. Christian girls are forced to wear the Islamic veil at school, and Christians are banned from drinking alcohol. Thousands of Christians have been killed in the last few years in the ensuing violence.

Although persecution of Christians is greatest in Muslim countries, it happens in countries of all religions and none. In Buddhist-majority Sri Lanka, religious tension led to 44 churches being attacked in the first four months of 2004, with 140 churches being forced to close because of intimidation. In India, the rise of Hindu nationalism has lead to persecution not just of Muslims but of Christians. There have been hundreds of attacks against the Christian community, which has been in India since ad 100. The government’s affirmative action programme for untouchables guarantees jobs and loans for poor Hindus and Buddhists, but not for Christians.

Last year in China, which has about 70 million Christians, more than 100 ‘house churches’ were closed down, and dozens of priests imprisoned. If you join the Communist party, you get special privileges, but you can only join if you are atheist. In North Korea, Christians are persecuted as anti-communist elements, and dissidents claim they are not just imprisoned but used in chemical warfare experiments.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Barnabas Trust, which helps persecuted Christians, blames rising global religious tension. ‘More and more Christians are seen as the odd ones out — they are seen as transplants from the West, and not really trusted. It is getting very much worse.’

Even in what was, before multiculturalism, known as Christendom, Christians are persecuted. I have spoken to dozens of former Muslims who have converted to Christianity in Britain, and who are shunned by their community, subjected to mob violence, forced out of town, threatened with death and even kidnapped. The Barnabas Trust knows of 3,000 such Christians facing persecution in this country, but the police and government do nothing.

You get the gist. Dr Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Centre for Religious Freedom in Washington, estimates that there are 200 million Christians who face violence because of their faith, and 350 million who face legally sanctioned discrimination in terms of access to jobs and housing. The World Evangelical Alliance wrote in a report to the UN Human Rights Commission last year that Christians are ‘the largest single group in the world which is being denied human rights on the basis of their faith’.

Part of the problem is old-style racism against non-whites; part of it is new-style guilt. If all this were happening to the world’s Sikhs or Muslims simply because of their faith, you can be sure it would lead the 10 O’Clock News and the front page of the Guardian on a regular basis. But the BBC, despite being mainly funded by Christians, is an organisation that promotes ridicule of the Bible, while banning criticism of the Koran. Dr Marshall said: ‘Christians are seen as Europeans and Americans, which means you get a lack of sympathy which you would not get if they were Tibetan Buddhists.’

Christians themselves are partly to blame for all this. Some get a masochistic kick out of being persecuted, believing it brings them closer to Jesus, crucified for His beliefs. Christianity uniquely defines itself by its persecution, and its forgiveness of its persecutors: the Christian symbol is the method of execution of its founder. Christianity was a persecuted religion for its first three centuries, until Emperor Constantine decided that worshipping Jesus was better for winning battles than worshipping the sun. In contrast, Mohammed was a soldier and ruler who led his people into victorious battle against their enemies. In the hundred years after the death of Mohammed, Islam conquered and converted most of North Africa and the Middle East in the most remarkable religious expansion in history.

To this day, while Muslims stick up for their co-religionists, Christians — beyond a few charities — have given up such forms of discrimination. Dr Sookhdeo said: ‘The Muslims have an Ummah [the worldwide Muslim community] whereas Christians do not have Christendom. There is no Christian country that says, “We are Christian and we will help Christians.”’

As a liberal democrat atheist, I believe all persecuted people should be helped equally, irrespective of their religion. But the guilt-ridden West is ignoring people because of their religion. If non-Christians like me can sense the nonsense, how does it make Christians feel? And how are they going to react? The Christophobes worried about rising Christian fundamentalism in Britain should understand that it is a reaction to our double standards. And as long as our double standards exist, Christian fundamentalism will grow

The step I left out was that murder involves, by definition, the killing of a person, and a fetus isn't a person, especially in the first trimester. In order for abortion to be murder, you have to make the fetus the equal of a living human being, and no matter how you try to do that, using reason or logic or science, it just doesn't happen. There's no way to make that leap except by faith, and if we're talking about calling an action a crime that is traditionally punished capitally, then there better be a whole helluva of a lot more backing up that definition than faith.

Yes, finally someone who understands the main thing that the debate is about. Most pro-choice people don't think a fetus is equal to a living human being, though some make pro-choice arguments on other grounds. Most pro-life people think the fetus is equal to a living human being, though a small number of them might be pro-life for other reasons. I don't think it makes any more sense to argue the fetus is not equal to a living human being. Both sides of the argument seem to have a gut feeling about weather a fetus is worthy of protection. I'm not really sure how to make an argument either way for if a fetus is equal to a living human being.

If it's not a living human being then yes it would be horrible to legislate what women are allowed to do with their bodies.

If it is a living human being then you have one person's right to life up against another person's self determination. I think the majority of Americans would think right to life trumps self determination. We arrest murderers (hense take away their right to self determination) because they take away other people's right to life.

I feel much better about risking needlessly taking away a women's right to self determination then I feel about needlessly risking another person's life. Though I think it would be wrong for me to support the pro-life stance without also supporting programs to help women get back on track after having a baby. In the current system even if a women gives the baby up for adoption if she becomes pregnant during a certain stage in her life (such as highschool) it can disrupt her entire life. That is unacceptable.

I'd like to know just how many people were polled in this issue.

Well with the poll in this thread we got 25% that don't care if Alito overturns Roe. We know the general forum has a liberal slant so I would say there certainly are a lot of pro-lifers and it is not a fringe position. Yes all political action groups (such as National Right to Life) are fringe group.

Well, as you can tell, I am strongly pro-choice, for personal ethical reasons that have nothing to do with religion....

Didn't want to quote all that, but anyone who wants to read it can scroll up a bit.

Your position is uncommonly logical. Thumbs up for that.

In fact I belive there are only a few logical positions. One is to believe that the fetus should be protected from the moment of conception. Another is for when the fetus exhibits brain wave patterns (since we often define adult life that way). And a third is that life becomes more valuable with increasing autonomy and/or increasing self awareness (you sound like you take this position).

Though I think a lot of people (even many that deep down agree with you) are uncomfortable with such a sliding scale type approach and would rather have a clear cut off. It gets into the uncomfortable position of saying yes, this is human life but it is less valuable.

Again, I think your position is logical and therefore defendable. Though I still dissagree with it. I think holding all human life equally valuable from the moment of conception on up is just as logical, even if your gut reaction to my position is wrong.

If someone is hooked up to life support and therefore completly dependent on others and a burden to them, is this person less valued? Even if they have a good chance of recovery and the situation is only temporary?

I'll give you people my opinion and then run away like a cowardly fool. (who can't spell)

Pros about abortion
baby's soul probably goes right to heaven
helps keep down the population
natural selection yay Darwin

Cons about abortion
killing a human
having a kid may force parent to get life together or fall apart
srews up the culture

I'm completely on the fence.

NO. you missed one point.

Legal and free abortion reduces crime extremly efficient, it kinda logical when you think about it.

I dont have the source here but I can get it if people doubt the logic.

I'd like to know just how many people were polled in this issue.
Last one I saw was polled to an expectation of polling error with an alpha of .01 total alpha of .05
fairly standard

Last one I saw was polled to an expectation of polling error with an alpha of .01 total alpha of .05
fairly standard
Usually a comment of the sort you replied to betrays a lack of understanding of basic statistics. It's a variant of the "they didn't ask me so it's bogus" argument.

Usually a comment of the sort you replied to betrays a lack of understanding of basic statistics. It's a variant of the "they didn't ask me so it's bogus" argument.
How so thats a fairly normal sampling vs measurement error, if I remembered my stats right. I can go dig through my old notes though if you felt I made an error its been almost two years and I am sure I could be confused

How so thats a fairly normal sampling vs measurement error, if I remembered my stats right. I can go dig through my old notes though if you felt I made an error its been almost two years and I am sure I could be confused
No no--you didn't make the error. The poster you were replying to made the error. The poster you replied to has, I suspect, no basic knowledge of statistics.

No no--you didn't make the error. The poster you were replying to made the error. The poster you replied to has, I suspect, no basic knowledge of statistics.
OHHH lol I must have missread ... lol you had me paging through my notes like a school kid that got repremanded by his teacher infront of everyone lol

Something I don't understand:

Why do Americans seem to get their knickers in such a twist over abortion?

i think it boils down to the disrespect for human life... and the contradictions on both sides:

Very many Repubs are against abortion (at least, abortion for vanity's sake -- "I just don't want it") and in favor of the death penalty.

Very many Democrats are in favor of abortion and against the death penalty.

A fetus is human life. Some have bought into the rationalization (necessary when you want to make killing a fetus "okay") that an embryo/fetus isn't alive... to hear some talk about a human fetus, you'd think they were talking about an inanimate object.

The fact is, it is human life. It is most definitely human, it is growing into what, 99% (at least) of the time, will be a healthy human being.

I understand supporting choice... but i do not buy the hard liners who treat the fetus with no respect at all, as if it were a rock. We were all fetuses once.

i think it boils down to the disrespect for human life... and the contradictions on both sides:

Very many Repubs are against abortion (at least, abortion for vanity's sake -- "I just don't want it") and in favor of the death penalty.

Very many Democrats are in favor of abortion and against the death penalty.

A fetus is human life. Some have bought into the rationalization (necessary when you want to make killing a fetus "okay") that an embryo/fetus isn't alive... to hear some talk about a human fetus, you'd think they were talking about an inanimate object.

The fact is, it is human life. It is most definitely human, it is growing into what, 99% (at least) of the time, will be a healthy human being.

I understand supporting choice... but i do not buy the hard liners who treat the fetus with no respect at all, as if it were a rock. We were all fetuses once.

We were all sperm and egg's once too ... I feel no need to respect them

(at least, abortion for vanity's sake -- "I just don't want it") This is the key, the big lie one might say, the notion that most abortions are for vanity's sake--I know you didn't say "most," Frangland, but that is the common argument among the louder anti-abortion people. Very few abortions are for vanity's sake--they happen, no question, and even most pro-choicers decry that--but what most anti-abortion people don't want to hear is that most of the time, women who get abortions have legitimate reasons for getting them--the woman is in an abusive relationship and fears reprisals, the woman was using birth control and it failed and can't financially handle another child, the woman is underage and fears reprisals from her parent(s), not to mention those who get abortions for medical reasons.

Didn't want to quote all that, but anyone who wants to read it can scroll up a bit.

Your position is uncommonly logical. Thumbs up for that.

In fact I belive there are only a few logical positions. One is to believe that the fetus should be protected from the moment of conception. Another is for when the fetus exhibits brain wave patterns (since we often define adult life that way). And a third is that life becomes more valuable with increasing autonomy and/or increasing self awareness (you sound like you take this position).

Though I think a lot of people (even many that deep down agree with you) are uncomfortable with such a sliding scale type approach and would rather have a clear cut off. It gets into the uncomfortable position of saying yes, this is human life but it is less valuable.

Again, I think your position is logical and therefore defendable. Though I still dissagree with it. I think holding all human life equally valuable from the moment of conception on up is just as logical, even if your gut reaction to my position is wrong.

If someone is hooked up to life support and therefore completly dependent on others and a burden to them, is this person less valued? Even if they have a good chance of recovery and the situation is only temporary?
Spock was always my favorite character on Star Trek. ;)

I agree with your list of logical positions on this issue, with the exception that I am not arguing the value of a life. I am arguing who should be allowed to have power over someone's life and under what circumstances. My position is that, as long as a fetus cannot survive without the mother's body, then it is a part of the mother's body, and not a functioning person -- perhaps it could be called a potential person. To me, the issue is not whether the potential person is "worth" more or less than an actual, existing person, but rather whether it is fair and just to an actual person to make them subordinate their rights to the rights of a potential person. In other words, is it right for society to say, well, yes, you exist right now, but we're more interested in this person who might someday exist? I say no, because it is my opinion that society exists to serve the people who live in it, i.e. actual people.

I don't know that it is really appropriate to compare abortion issues with right-to-die issues because a right-to-die case isn't about a potential person who might come into the world, but rather about an actual person who is or is not trying to leave the world. The question of who has authority to make death decisions is not nearly so clear to me.

It seems to me that, in the US, there are three big political life/death issues: abortion, right-to-die, and death penalty. I don't really think they are comparable to each other, but they all hinge on the question of Party A making the decision to end the life of Party B. I don't think any of these debates is helped by one side or another pretending that's not what they are about. There are times when it becomes necessary for one person to end the life of another. It's a harsh reality, and if we want a just and civilized society then we must think dispassionately about it. We will not all reach the same conclusion, and the debates will probably never end.

In the abortion debate in particular, I'm not going to argue that the pro-life argument is wrong about the human-ness of fetuses, but I am going to argue that a total ban or even some of the more severe restrictions on abortion would be an injustice against women. Therefore, I would argue that society should accept the right of women to abort their pregnancies if they feel they must. It's not a happy position to take, and where pro-life people are working to create a society that supports families, makes healthcare, including contraception, available to all, and fully educates young people so they can exercise proper responsibility for reproductive planning, with the goal of a society in which the vast majority of abortions will performed only for medical necessity or in cases of rape, then I will gladly work right along with them.

Well with the poll in this thread we got 25% that don't care if Alito overturns Roe. We know the general forum has a liberal slant so I would say there certainly are a lot of pro-lifers and it is not a fringe position. Yes all political action groups (such as National Right to Life) are fringe group.

What an illogical statement.

The poll doesn't ask, "Would you be ok with it if Alito overturned Roe?"

It says, "Do you think the nomination should be blocked if Alito will overturn Roe?"

These are two very different questions. From a political view, many people would not be ok with overturning Roe and are pro-choice, but also think that an ideological difference - ie. disagreeing on this decision - is not a reason to block a nomination.

How so thats a fairly normal sampling vs measurement error, if I remembered my stats right. I can go dig through my old notes though if you felt I made an error its been almost two years and I am sure I could be confused

An alpha value of 0.01 to 0.05, in my field at least, is generally considered statistically significant.

A fetus is human life.

Define human life.

The fact is, it is human life. It is most definitely human, it is growing into what, 99% (at least) of the time, will be a healthy human being.

Fallacy. You are saying, "It will be a human, therefore it is a human life." One could make the exact same argument about a sperm and an egg.

Meanwhile, your 99% mark is outrageous. 50% of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage (in the 1st world). There are others that result in stillbirth. Before that, a signficant percentage of fertilized eggs do not implant or spontaneously abort before the woman even knows about it. 99% is a laughable figure.

I understand supporting choice... but i do not buy the hard liners who treat the fetus with no respect at all, as if it were a rock. We were all fetuses once.

Please point us to this mythical creature that "treat the fetus with no respect at all...." I have yet to ever meet one.

It seems to me that, in the US, there are three big political life/death issues: abortion, right-to-die, and death penalty. I don't really think they are comparable to each other, but they all hinge on the question of Party A making the decision to end the life of Party B.

This may sound pedantic, but right-to-die debates are actually generally about Party A making the decision to end the life of Party A. The second party is only involved in order to carry out A's wishes.

An alpha value of 0.01 to 0.05, in my field at least, is generally considered statistically significant.



Lol but you work in a field where tollerances are a bit more ... how we say critical lol

Lol but you work in a field where tollerances are a bit more ... how we say critical lol

True, but if those tolerances work for us, then they're probably considered damn good by a less quantitative field like sociology (or so I would think).

This may sound pedantic, but right-to-die debates are actually generally about Party A making the decision to end the life of Party A. The second party is only involved in order to carry out A's wishes.
I meant proxy situations -- lack of clear living will documentation; euthanasia issues, that kind of thing.

I meant proxy situations -- lack of clear living will documentation; euthanasia issues, that kind of thing.

That doesn't really make a difference, however. In those cases, Party A, while they may not have made it clear through a living will (which isn't really enforceable anyways), has made it clear that they wish Party B to be the person making decisions for them (at least, this is true in all the cases I have seen). Thus, it still goes directly back to the decisions made directly by Party A....

Edit: Of course, proxy cases are rarely what are talked about in the right-to-die debates. Laws like the one in Oregon, for instance, do not provide a proxy the right to decide on euthenasia (at least, not to my knowledge).

There is something you should read here if you think that is the case
It took me a while to read through this article. It did not change my mind on this subject. Following are my notes and highlights:

[/QUOTE]Originally Posted by The Spectator

RESPONSE: You did not identify which Spectator -- US or UK. From the text, I figured UK, which seems from its website to be a conservative publication (though not as conservative as the rather shrill US Spectator)

For most citizens of Iraq, the invasion meant the end of tyranny. For one group, however, it meant a new start: the country’s historic Christian community. When the war stopped, persecution by Islamists, held in check by Saddam, started.

At a church in Basra I visited a month after the war ended, the women complained of attacks against them for not wearing the Islamic veil. I saw many Christian-owned shops that had been firebombed, with many of the owners killed for exercising their legal right to sell alcohol. Two years and many church attacks later, Iraq may still be occupied by Christian foreign powers, but the Islamist plan to ethnically cleanse Iraq of its nearly 2,000-year-old Assyrian and Armenian Christian communities is reaching fruition.

There is nothing unusual about the persecution of Iraqi Christians, or the unwillingness of other Christians to help them. Rising nationalism and fundamentalism around the world have meant that Christianity is going back to its roots as the religion of the persecuted. There are now more than 300 million Christians who are either threatened with violence or legally discriminated against simply because of their faith — more than any other religion. Christians are no longer, as far as I am aware, thrown to the lions. But from China, North Korea and Malaysia, through India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they are subjected to legalised discrimination, violence, imprisonment, relocation and forced conversion. Even in supposedly Christian Europe, Christianity has become the most mocked religion, its followers treated with public suspicion and derision and sometimes — such as the would-be EU commissioner Rocco Buttiglione — hounded out of political office.

RESPONSE: I find it interesting that Muslims make the exact same claims.

I am no Christian, but rather a godless atheist whose soul doesn’t want to be saved, thank you. I may not believe in the man with the white beard, but I do believe that all persecution is wrong. The trouble is that the trendies who normally champion human rights seem to think persecution is fine, so long as it’s only against Christians. While Muslims openly help other Muslims, Christians helping Christians has become as taboo as jingoistic nationalism.

RESPONSE: I would like to know who precisely is stopping Christians from helping other Christians? Are Christians so afraid of being made fun of by the BBC that they will leave their fellows to die in foreign countries? I doubt that's the problem as the writer has already mentioned the unwillingness of Christians to help each other and mentions it again later.

On the face of it, the idea of Christians facing serious persecution seems as far-fetched as a carpenter saving humanity. Christianity is the world’s most followed religion, with two billion believers, and by far its most powerful. It is the most popular faith in six of the seven continents, and in both of the world’s two biggest economies, the US and Europe. Seven of the G8 richest industrial nations are majority Christian, as are four out of five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The cheek-turners control the vast majority of the world’s weapons of mass destruction.

When I bumped into George Bush in the breakfast room of the US embassy in Brussels last month, standing right behind me were two men in uniform carrying the little black ‘nuclear football’, containing the codes to enable the world’s most powerful Christian to unleash the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal. Christians claiming persecution seem as credible as Bill Gates pleading poverty. But just as Christian-majority armies control Iraq as it ethnically cleanses itself of its Christian community, so the power of Christian countries is of little help to the Christian persecuted where most Christians now live: the Third World.

RESPONSE: My point, precisely. It's like saying Americans are a persecuted group. It just doesn't pass the reality test. A refusal to use political and economic resources to help people in trouble does not qualify a group as "persecuted." They have the resources to protect themselves and to address anti-Christian prejudices where they exist.

Across the Islamic world, Christians are systematically discriminated against and persecuted. Saudi Arabia — the global fountain of religious bigotry — bans churches, public Christian worship, the Bible and the sale of Christmas cards, and stops non-Muslims from entering Mecca. Christians are regularly imprisoned and tortured on trumped-up charges of drinking, blaspheming or Bible-bashing, as some British citizens have found. Just last month, furthermore, Saudi Arabia announced that only Muslims can become citizens.

RESPONSE: Far be it from me to defend the Saudis, but that phrase seems like pure jingoism to me. From my point of view, there are plenty of sources of religious bigotry around the world.

The Copts of Egypt make up half the Christians in the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity. They inhabited the land before the Islamic conquest, and still make up a fifth of the population. By law they are banned from being president of the Islamic Republic of Egypt or attending Al Azhar University, and severely restricted from joining the police and army. By practice they are banned from holding any high political or commercial position. Under the 19th-century Hamayouni decrees, Copts must get permission from the president to build or repair churches — but he usually refuses. Mosques face no such controls.

Government-controlled TV broadcasts anti-Copt propaganda, while giving no airtime to Copts. It is illegal for Muslims to convert to Christianity, but legal for Christians to convert to Islam. Christian girls — and even the wives of Christian priests — are abducted and forcibly converted to Islam, recently prompting mass demonstrations. A report by Freedom House in Washington concludes: ‘The cumulative effect of these threats creates an atmosphere of persecution and raises fears that during the 21st century the Copts may have a vastly diminished presence in their homelands.’

Fr Drew Christiansen, an adviser to the US Conference of Bishops, recently conducted a study which stated that ‘all over the Middle East, Christians are under pressure. “The cradle of Christianity” is under enormous pressure from demographic decline, the growth of Islamic militancy, official and unofficial discrimination, the Iraq war, the Palestinian Intifada, failed peace policies and political manipulation.’

RESPONSE: Here it sounds as if the problem is that Christians just want to hold onto the Holy Land. I remind you of my earlier mentioned lack of sympathy for invaders of any stripe.

In the world’s most economically successful Muslim nation, Malaysia, the world’s only deliberate affirmative action programme for a majority population ensures that Muslims are given better access to jobs, housing and education. In the world’s most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, some 10,000 Christians have been killed in the last few years by Muslims trying to Islamify the Moluccas.

RESPONSE: So have Buddhists and animists. Once again, Christians are not being singled per se as Christians, but rather are being attacked along with all other non-Muslims. Ever since WWII, there is a certain sympathetic privilege accorded those who are being persecuted. If you are trying to claim that status while implying that you are being uniquely attacked, this is a disservice to others who are under similar pressure.

In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, most of the five million Christians live as an underclass, doing work such as toilet-cleaning. Under the Hudood ordinances, a Muslim can testify against a non-Muslim in court, but a non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim. Blasphemy laws are abused to persecute Christians. In the last few years, dozens of Christians have been killed in bomb and gun attacks on churches and Christian schools.

In Nigeria, 12 states have introduced Sharia law, which affects Christians as much as Muslims. Christian girls are forced to wear the Islamic veil at school, and Christians are banned from drinking alcohol. Thousands of Christians have been killed in the last few years in the ensuing violence.

Although persecution of Christians is greatest in Muslim countries, it happens in countries of all religions and none. In Buddhist-majority Sri Lanka, religious tension led to 44 churches being attacked in the first four months of 2004, with 140 churches being forced to close because of intimidation. In India, the rise of Hindu nationalism has lead to persecution not just of Muslims but of Christians. There have been hundreds of attacks against the Christian community, which has been in India since ad 100. The government’s affirmative action programme for untouchables guarantees jobs and loans for poor Hindus and Buddhists, but not for Christians.

RESPONSE: Is there anyone who isn't persecuting Christians? This article is strong on inflammatory claims but light on references and direct quotes. Also all of the claims of persecution are directed at countries in which sectarian violence is directed at other groups as well as Christians, yet the claims seem to imply that only Christians are being targeted.

Last year in China, which has about 70 million Christians, more than 100 ‘house churches’ were closed down, and dozens of priests imprisoned. If you join the Communist party, you get special privileges, but you can only join if you are atheist. In North Korea, Christians are persecuted as anti-communist elements, and dissidents claim they are not just imprisoned but used in chemical warfare experiments.

RESPONSE: I have already stipulated that Communist regimes persecute all religions. Again, the exact same claims being made about Christians also apply to Buddhists and groups such as Falun Gong (sorry about the spelling on that).

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Barnabas Trust, which helps persecuted Christians, blames rising global religious tension. ‘More and more Christians are seen as the odd ones out — they are seen as transplants from the West, and not really trusted. It is getting very much worse.’

Even in what was, before multiculturalism, known as Christendom, Christians are persecuted. I have spoken to dozens of former Muslims who have converted to Christianity in Britain, and who are shunned by their community, subjected to mob violence, forced out of town, threatened with death and even kidnapped. The Barnabas Trust knows of 3,000 such Christians facing persecution in this country, but the police and government do nothing.

You get the gist. Dr Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Centre for Religious Freedom in Washington, estimates that there are 200 million Christians who face violence because of their faith, and 350 million who face legally sanctioned discrimination in terms of access to jobs and housing. The World Evangelical Alliance wrote in a report to the UN Human Rights Commission last year that Christians are ‘the largest single group in the world which is being denied human rights on the basis of their faith’.

Part of the problem is old-style racism against non-whites; part of it is new-style guilt. If all this were happening to the world’s Sikhs or Muslims simply because of their faith, you can be sure it would lead the 10 O’Clock News and the front page of the Guardian on a regular basis. But the BBC, despite being mainly funded by Christians, is an organisation that promotes ridicule of the Bible, while banning criticism of the Koran. Dr Marshall said: ‘Christians are seen as Europeans and Americans, which means you get a lack of sympathy which you would not get if they were Tibetan Buddhists.’

RESPONSE: Now, I'm sorry, but this just sounds like whining. If Christians really feel they aren't getting equal time from the BBC, I'm sure they are not, in fact, being blocked from demanding fair treatment. Oh, and in my opinion, Christian churches don't have a much better record in their treatment of non-whites than any other powerful organization since the dawn of the Industrial Age. Is this article really trying to play a race card?

Christians themselves are partly to blame for all this. Some get a masochistic kick out of being persecuted, believing it brings them closer to Jesus, crucified for His beliefs. Christianity uniquely defines itself by its persecution, and its forgiveness of its persecutors: the Christian symbol is the method of execution of its founder. Christianity was a persecuted religion for its first three centuries, until Emperor Constantine decided that worshipping Jesus was better for winning battles than worshipping the sun. In contrast, Mohammed was a soldier and ruler who led his people into victorious battle against their enemies. In the hundred years after the death of Mohammed, Islam conquered and converted most of North Africa and the Middle East in the most remarkable religious expansion in history.

RESPONSE: This is the question I posed to Arnburg who then made it clear that he or she was merely quoting the Bible to express passionate commitment -- a poetical way of speaking. You, however, seem to be arguing the line I was objecting to -- i.e., Christians are being persecuted, under threat of extinction, therefore they must rewrite the laws the US in order to protect themselves or they will all find themselves at the mercy of a murderous non-Christians. The above statement seems to agree with me that this is more a matter of Christian self-image than of reality. Obviously, if you define yourselves by your relationship to persecutors (which I don't accept is the case with most Christians) then you must make sure you have persecutors to relate to.

To this day, while Muslims stick up for their co-religionists, Christians — beyond a few charities — have given up such forms of discrimination. Dr Sookhdeo said: ‘The Muslims have an Ummah [the worldwide Muslim community] whereas Christians do not have Christendom. There is no Christian country that says, “We are Christian and we will help Christians.”’

RESPONSE: Once again, I maintain that Christians have the resources to stop persecution, but do not do so -- although some of them seem determined to establish the USA as that "Christian country" that will help Christians all around the world. I say they've already got the Vatican and a host of wealthy and powerful synods and other groups, and frankly, I'm not willing to play Palestinian to their Israeli, if you'll pardon the glib comparison.

As a liberal democrat atheist, I believe all persecuted people should be helped equally, irrespective of their religion. But the guilt-ridden West is ignoring people because of their religion. If non-Christians like me can sense the nonsense, how does it make Christians feel? And how are they going to react? The Christophobes worried about rising Christian fundamentalism in Britain should understand that it is a reaction to our double standards. And as long as our double standards exist, Christian fundamentalism will grow[/QUOTE]

*huggles Avalon II* :)

Muravyets you seem to be saying one thing and then turning around and saying the complete oppsite in that post. No I'm not trying to prove Amburg wasn't talking poetically, I was trying to prove that Christians are persecuted still today (whether in conjunction with any other religions, whether this is right or wrong etc.You just used a blanket statement that christians were no longer being persecuted)

It seems more likely that they just don't like infidels, but again I repeat, you didn't ask I show exclusive persecution of Christians. I don't think the animists should be persecuted either.

It was kind of half UK and half US, I'm not american. And I think you will find that people do attack people for their religon even in 'civilised' countries. But luckily most people aren't as closed-minded as that. Hm, danger from them. It's not impossible but it is highly improbable.

Yes of course and that is something the churches should be ashamed of, but as I said they are composed of imperfect humans.

Yes it is offtopic, maybe I will create one so it is ontopic but that is the way of posts in forums.

and your post bolds what you want to point out and your response which makes it diffivcult to seperate out what you are saying

True, but if those tolerances work for us, then they're probably considered damn good by a less quantitative field like sociology (or so I would think).
In survey statistics and social regressional analysis an alpha of .05 was considered the "normal" use (for total) you on average wanted a sampling error of less then that (obviously) because mesurement error usualy is about .03 to .04 for most social applications

*huggles Avalon II* :)

Muravyets you seem to be saying one thing and then turning around and saying the complete oppsite in that post. No I'm not trying to prove Amburg wasn't talking poetically, I was trying to prove that Christians are persecuted still today (whether in conjunction with any other religions, whether this is right or wrong etc.You just used a blanket statement that christians were no longer being persecuted)

It seems more likely that they just don't like infidels, but again I repeat, you didn't ask I show exclusive persecution of Christians. I don't think the animists should be persecuted either.

It was kind of half UK and half US, I'm not american. And I think you will find that people do attack people for their religon even in 'civilised' countries. But luckily most people aren't as closed-minded as that. Hm, danger from them. It's not impossible but it is highly improbable.

Yes of course and that is something the churches should be ashamed of, but as I said they are composed of imperfect humans.

Yes it is offtopic, maybe I will create one so it is ontopic but that is the way of posts in forums.

and your post bolds what you want to point out and your response which makes it diffivcult to seperate out what you are saying
I think you're the one who is contradicting yourself. Your statements only talk about Christians, but when I challenge you on it, you seem to be backpedaling and saying, no, no, we're including others as well.

There is no doubt that there is brutal sectarian violence being perpetrated by governments and terrorists around the world and that Christians are among their many victims. But from the start I have been talking about the attitudes of extremist Christians in the US, and I have been objecting to their attempts to impose their religion upon the general population in the guise of law. Among the methods of this extremist minority has been a claim that Christians are under threat. In the US, this could not be further from the truth. I suspect the same could be said of Europe and the UK. I stand by my assertion that Christian churches have the means to help Christians stuck in hostile countries and that they fail to do so.

But one thing they do seem ready to do is to claim "persecution" as a reason to turn my country into a theocracy.

None of the arguments against me has proved otherwise. In fact, I think they have even bolstered my stance a bit.

PS: I've edited my post to show which paragraphs are my responses. Sorry about that.

I think you're the one who is contradicting yourself. Your statements only talk about Christians, but when I challenge you on it, you seem to be backpedaling and saying, no, no, we're including others as well.

Just because I don't talk about them doesn't mean I'm including or discluding (is that a word?) them from being persecuted. It wasn't intended and I'm sorry if I contradict myself, I don't mean to.


There is no doubt that there is brutal sectarian violence being perpetrated by governments and terrorists around the world and that Christians are among their many victims. But from the start I have been talking about the attitudes of extremist Christians in the US, and I have been objecting to their attempts to impose their religion upon the general population in the guise of law. Among the methods of this extremist minority has been a claim that Christians are under threat. In the US, this could not be further from the truth. I suspect the same could be said of Europe and the UK. I stand by my assertion that Christian churches have the means to help Christians stuck in hostile countries and that they fail to do so.

ok for the most part, I disagree with your last sentence but 'i gusti sono gusti'


But one thing they do seem ready to do is to claim "persecution" as a reason to turn my country into a theocracy. Yep, I agree, stupid. Unless of course everyone consents to it being a theocracy. However much I would like rules like that, people have the choice to do stuff I don't want them to. Plus reality never works the way you want it to.


None of the arguments against me has proved otherwise. In fact, I think they have even bolstered my stance a bit.

PS: I've edited my post to show which paragraphs are my responses. Sorry about that.
Thank you.

Just because I don't talk about them doesn't mean I'm including or discluding (is that a word?) them from being persecuted. It wasn't intended and I'm sorry if I contradict myself, I don't mean to.



ok for the most part, I disagree with your last sentence but 'i gusti sono gusti'

Yep, I agree, stupid. Unless of course everyone consents to it being a theocracy. However much I would like rules like that, people have the choice to do stuff I don't want them to. Plus reality never works the way you want it to.


Thank you.
If we keeping hammering away at it, we eventually find common ground. Worth the effort, imo. :)

If we keeping hammering away at it, we eventually find common ground. Worth the effort, imo. :)

Well unless you are alien, we have at least 4 things: We are human, We inhabit the earth and I'll let you figure the other 2 out :P

Well unless you are alien, we have at least 4 things: We are human, We inhabit the earth and I'll let you figure the other 2 out :P
Uh...um...ummm...hmm... dammit, you've effectively stymied me with this cryptic conundrum, you cryptic conundrummer. Oh well, I shall continue to argue with folks and tonight, I'll sleep on it.

Kinda sounds like a threat?

Regardless of your feeble attempt to justify murdering someone by shooting them in the back of the head, you want others to believe that you have sound Christian morals.

You think that abortion is equivalent to murder (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9871294&postcount=35), yet shooting an unarmed prisoner in the back of the head is okay?

I think if anyone is mistaken, it is you.

Did I say anything about an unarmed prisoner? No I don't believe I mentioned if he was armed or not.

As for Abortion, yes I do think it is murder because to me, life begins at conception.

Did I say anything about an unarmed prisoner? No I don't believe I mentioned if he was armed or not.
Your exact words were:

If I capture someone, who has a gun and was using it to shoot at me, then he is no longer protected. He is considered an illegal and I'll put a bullet through the back of skull.
If you capture someone and they are in your custody, you think that it is appropriate to shoot them in the back of the head? And why the back of the head. Sheesh!!

Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal. Yet you want to preach about upholding International law and human rights. Yeah sure ya do.

There was a very famous picture during the Vietnam War that showed an assassination very similar to the one that you described except it was more from the side. I would post a link to it but I think that it violates NS policy.

Your exact words were:


If you capture someone and they are in your custody, you think that it is appropriate to shoot them in the back of the head? And why the back of the head. Sheesh!!

Thank you for proving that the dude wasn't unarmed. Your arguement is now debunked.

Not only is it morally wrong, it is illegal. Yet you want to preach about upholding International law and human rights. Yeah sure ya do.

Wrong. It isn't illegal. Irregular military personel are not covered under International Law. They are far game.

There was a very famous picture during the Vietnam War that showed an assassination very similar to the one that you described except it was more from the side. I would post a link to it but I think that it violates NS policy.

FYI: This has nothing to do with abortion so why don't you get your one tracked mind back to the topic at hand.

BTW: In accordance with this poll, most americans also support NOTIFICATION.

Thank you for proving that the dude wasn't unarmed. Your arguement is now debunked.

According to your statement of "back of the skull", that can mean either of two things.

1: Said person was shooting at you by pointing his gun behind him.

2: Said person was subdued and is now a prisoner. Of which you executed him/her in cold blood. (Cold blood killing is not the same as killing in the heat of the moment)

If it is option 2, that would quite clearly be a breach of geneva conventions regarding military personel and their allowable conduct.

But since you have not actually enlisted, nor indicated that you ever will, that indicates that in such a situation, what you did was go in there as an illegal combatant. That means you are fair game to both sides. It would also, since it was a cold blooded killing, be classified as murder one.

Furthermore, you did not specify whether the person who was shooting at you was a uniformed soldier or not. The Geneva convention is quite clear about the treatment of the former when captured.


Wrong. It isn't illegal. Irregular military personel are not covered under International Law. They are far game.

The idea of irregular military personel or "illegal/unlawful combatants" was originally coined by the administration so as to cover even the regular armed forces of the Taliban. The argument was that the Taliban was a failed government. As such, the idea of "unlawful combatants" can now be very conveniently applied to any government the administration has a beef with. All they have to do is proclaim the government to be a failed government.

In such a situation, it is nothing more than twisting the law as is present into a pretzel so as to get their way.

What an illogical statement.

The poll doesn't ask, "Would you be ok with it if Alito overturned Roe?"

It says, "Do you think the nomination should be blocked if Alito will overturn Roe?"

These are two very different questions. From a political view, many people would not be ok with overturning Roe and are pro-choice, but also think that an ideological difference - ie. disagreeing on this decision - is not a reason to block a nomination.


Actually that occured to me when I was typing it, but decided to leave it as so simply to see if it got pointed out.

Thank you for proving that the dude wasn't unarmed. Your arguement is now debunked.
If the "dude" was captured by you as you suggest, then he would no longer be armed? You are skirting around the issue. You have debunked nothing.

Wrong. It isn't illegal. Irregular military personel are not covered under International Law. They are far game.
So, because the prisoners are not "covered under International Law", it is okay to execute that person? WOW!! I guess by your reasoning, if the prisoner is not "covered under International Law", then they are also not covered by God's laws?

You are trying to say that abortion is "murder" but executing "Irregular military personel" is okay? Then you take it one step further by saying that you would shoot said "Irregular military personel" in the "back of skull"?

FYI: This has nothing to do with abortion so why don't you get your one tracked mind back to the topic at hand.
Why should I believe you that abortion is murder, when you think that shooting an "Irregular military personel" in the "back of skull" is not murder?