Political Crossfire Forums

[Sailor Moon]

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: Ah, so we started with the religion argument, now we've moved on to the "They lied to us in the medical facilities" bit. I'm sure that you went into that office thinking you were just there for a lollipop.

How many times are you going to find a new pile of bullsh** before you leave this thread with your tail between your legs?

They DO lie to you, and if you had the guts to go volunteer at one of those places, you would know that too.

They tell you its a "blob of tissue". They told ME it was a blob of tissue. Even Norma McCorvey admits to having told women they just missed a period, or something.

They lie.

Go volunteer somewhere and tell me how dedicated people are to abortion practices. You'll see they are not. The high turnover rates are unreal! Those people are always hiring. Go, really, go volunteer!

PS this is what my "blob of tissue" REALLY was:

http://abortionismurder.org/HTML/I-A-4-photos8.html

Do a search. Type in "abortion photos". You'll see. The lies! They lie through their teeth. They have to sell abortion to stay in business, and unfortunately, telling women the truth just doesnt pay their bills.

You need to Face the truth!

[Sailor Moon]

steen wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: No, it says the government cannot run the church.

Hilarious!

Here ya go. First Amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


As you can see, religion can affect the laws, but the laws cannot affect religion. Per the blue text above, your claim is false.

Steen- you arent even reading it. The government cannot make a law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion. That means that the government is free to allow religion to affect the laws, but NOT to make LAWS that affect RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The separation of church and state is not a two way road. It is a one way street. What you are insisting is ridiculous, and is insinuating that nobody of religion can affect the laws. Thats absurd!!!!!!!!!!!! Just, completely ABSURD! The law cannot rule religion, but religion can, and DOES rule the law.

WE make the laws.

WE THE PEOPLE.

We, the RELIGIOUS MAJORITY of people, decide.

[LetsJustBeHuman]

For those of you who justify any argument with Christian reasoning (ex: Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc). Why do you feel it is either the right or the responsibility of a religiously impartial governing body to take away the choice between a good life and a bad life even God left to humans?

Look, I think we have to realize that our government at this point is not religiously impartial. This is a cabinet that is strictly neo con christian, identifies with very right christian views and sells to the right christian population of america. It would be ignorant to disregard this.

[Sailor Moon]

....And they are all voted for, and representatives of believers. Its allowed, and if you read through this topic a little, you will see why.


BTW, Welcome to PCF! :LOL:

[steen]

Sailor Moon wrote: steen wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: No, it says the government cannot run the church.

Hilarious!

Here ya go. First Amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As you can see, religion can affect the laws, but the laws cannot affect religion. Per the blue text above, your claim is false.
Steen- you arent even reading it. The government cannot make a law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion. That means that the government is free to allow religion to affect the laws, but NOT to make LAWS that affect RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, sailor moon, your ignorance on this is astonishing. It means that the Government can not push legislation that endorses one religion over others; it can not establish any one religion as the dominant or the default one. It can not promote one religion over another. THAT is what the Establishment Clause is.

Good heavens. Go learn about this, why don't you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause

Quote: The separation of church and state is not a two way road. Yes, it is.

Quote: It is a one way street. No, it isn't.

Quote: What you are insisting is ridiculous, No, it is factual.; not driven by personal belief like your claim based in ignorance of the actual US Constitution.

Quote: and is insinuating that nobody of religion can affect the laws. Thats absurd!!!!!!!!!!!! Just, completely ABSURD! The law cannot rule religion, but religion can, and DOES rule the law. I am saddened that you find reality so absurd. but perhaps that explains why I have so much trouble making sense of your posts sometimes, that you simply don't see things the way the rest of us do, who live in the real world? I am not sure what else the reason could be, and I am frankly plussed here. The Establishment Clause has been defined and has been in working effect for centuries; your new and bizarre argument doesn't make sense at all.

Quote: WE make the laws.

WE THE PEOPLE.

We, the RELIGIOUS MAJORITY of people, decide. Not if it runs contrary to the US Constitution, such as if it violates the Establishment clause.

I would cite some legal cases on this, if I thought it would help your comprehension, but I simply don't think it is worth the effort.

[Sailor Moon]

That wikipedia article also quotes part of Thomas Jeffersons quote, as I mentioned before. HE said it is a one way street. I am not going to argue with you. The government cant establish a religion. It cant promote a religion. That does not mean that religion cannot play a role in what laws are made.

[neoritter]

The real debate about abortion is not that its nonchristian or christian or whatever, its the fact that, when you have an abortion are you killing a living person? Now there are laws that say if you kill a pregnant women it counts as you killing two ppl. So why can a mother kill her own child if its life is protected under the above law? Does anyone else see at least a little bit of hypocrisy?

[Sailor Moon]

Yes. It is entirely hypocritical!

[Gilbert1908]

neoritter wrote: The real debate about abortion is not that its nonchristian or christian or whatever, its the fact that, when you have an abortion are you killing a living person? Now there are laws that say if you kill a pregnant women it counts as you killing two ppl. So why can a mother kill her own child if its life is protected under the above law? Does anyone else see at least a little bit of hypocrisy?

The mother can also be prosecuted for abusing her child in pregnancy by drinking, taking drugs etc..

Which makes the "privacy" right a bit more tenuous as well.

[The Grandmaster]

Gilbert1908 wrote: neoritter wrote: The real debate about abortion is not that its nonchristian or christian or whatever, its the fact that, when you have an abortion are you killing a living person? Now there are laws that say if you kill a pregnant women it counts as you killing two ppl. So why can a mother kill her own child if its life is protected under the above law? Does anyone else see at least a little bit of hypocrisy?

The mother can also be prosecuted for abusing her child in pregnancy by drinking, taking drugs etc..

Which makes the "privacy" right a bit more tenuous as well.

I was not aware of this. A women can get into trouble for drinking while pregnant?

[Gilbert1908]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: neoritter wrote: The real debate about abortion is not that its nonchristian or christian or whatever, its the fact that, when you have an abortion are you killing a living person? Now there are laws that say if you kill a pregnant women it counts as you killing two ppl. So why can a mother kill her own child if its life is protected under the above law? Does anyone else see at least a little bit of hypocrisy?

The mother can also be prosecuted for abusing her child in pregnancy by drinking, taking drugs etc..

Which makes the "privacy" right a bit more tenuous as well.

I was not aware of this. A women can get into trouble for drinking while pregnant?

Prosecuted may be the wrong term in several states(WI, ND and SC among others) women who abuse either alcohol or drugs can be confined for the duration of their pregnancy to assure a healthy child and then the child may be removed from the mother.

So yes they can "get into trouble".

[Sailor Moon]

I dont think so. I think that it may happen, but only if the end result is severely damaging. There are no laws against drinking during pregnancy, nor should there ever be. Some physicians even say its "beneficial" to drink while youre pregnant, red wine in moderation.

This is because it has antioxidants. Obviously, you shouldnt binge drink, or drink if you have certain conditions, but not knowing that you have such conditions is all "chance" and sometimes, chances are allowed to be taken, especially with womens autonomy.

[Gilbert1908]

Sailor Moon wrote: I dont think so. I think that it may happen, but only if the end result is severely damaging. There are no laws against drinking during pregnancy, nor should there ever be. Some physicians even say its "beneficial" to drink while youre pregnant, red wine in moderation.

This is because it has antioxidants. Obviously, you shouldnt binge drink, or drink if you have certain conditions, but not knowing that you have such conditions is all "chance" and sometimes, chances are allowed to be taken, especially with womens autonomy.

Some physicians say moderate drinking is BENEFICIAL during PREGNANCY.

I would like to see that link if you please.

Or are we going to find that it is SOME experts say moderate drinking MAY do no harm?

http://apu.sfn.org/content/Publications/BrainBriefings/drinking.html

[The Grandmaster]

Well as far as this goes, I wasn't aware a women could be "confined" or robbed of liberty from drinking "too much" while pregnant. I know little about this, so I suppose I'll need to see links. Who gets to say "You've drank too much...jail!" ?

[Gilbert1908]

Sailor Moon wrote: I dont think so. I think that it may happen, but only if the end result is severely damaging. There are no laws against drinking during pregnancy, nor should there ever be. Some physicians even say its "beneficial" to drink while youre pregnant, red wine in moderation.

This is because it has antioxidants. Obviously, you shouldnt binge drink, or drink if you have certain conditions, but not knowing that you have such conditions is all "chance" and sometimes, chances are allowed to be taken, especially with womens autonomy.

By the way I am not favoring criminalizing this behavior, but protecting the life of the child and providing treatment for the mother.

That is why I corrected the term prosecuted above. These are civil matters usually handled by the state child protective services and appropriately so.

[Sailor Moon]

OK here ya go!

http://stratsplace.com/rogov/wine_expect_mother.html

My mouse isnt allowing me to right click anything currently, and I found some other sites that show that in lots of other countries, alcohol consumption during pregnancy is fine in moderation.

I cant copy and paste right now, Like I said, but in the site I listed, it does say that fetal death from alcohol only accounts for 0.1% of fetal mortality.

See, with alcohol, its only the alcohol ABUSERS who are damaging their kids. Not the majority, who only use in moderation. Something like 3 in 100,000 have FAS.


The government is very oppressive to women, because they just ignore all this stuff. In fact, before FAS was discoveres, alcohol was used successfully to stop contractions, therefore stopping preterm labor.

Alcohol aint all bad.

[tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego]

Sailor Moon wrote: Steen- you arent even reading it. The government cannot make a law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion. That means that the government is free to allow religion to affect the laws, but NOT to make LAWS that affect RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think some clarification is in order here. Clearly, some of this language is confusing the less literate among us. When it says "respecting an establishment of religion" it means in respect OF not in respect TO. There is a very large difference. In respect OF, means that no law can be made that is justified by a religious establishment (as in, respecting the beliefs of a religious establishment), in respect TO means that no law can be made that affects a religious establishment. It says nothing about laws in respect TO an establishment of religion.

And by the way, Thomas Jefferson didn't write the constitution and wasn't present at any of the commitees that worked out the constitution or the political system that is still in use today. His writing of the Declaration of Independance only directly led to the League of Friendship, which was a government so weak it was reformed within 8 years of its founding. Find someone who played a slightly larger role in our government to support these claims.

And don't bring wikipedia stuff here, its not reliable. There's as good a chance of it being completely made up as there is of it being right.

[Sailor Moon]

It also says an ESTABLISHMENT OF.

There is nothing to say that religion cannot affect lawmaking, as law making does not affect religion.

[tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego]

Its the opposite, as I said. If you're going to cover your ears and hum to yourself, then there's nothing I can do to convince you. The first amendment means no religion can ever manifest itself in laws. Once a religion manifests itself in laws not held by the entire populace, then the government IS affecting religion. So either religion cannot affect the state (which is what that passage means) or the entire idea is falsified by its own logic.

The only thing that religion can constitutionally influence is policy. It cannot, as the constitution says, manifest itself in laws. No one here will argue that religion can't influence policy, as is right. But a LAW can never be religiously based.

[Sailor Moon]

tutis_silva_sed_tutis_ego wrote: Its the opposite, as I said. If you're going to cover your ears and hum to yourself, then there's nothing I can do to convince you. The first amendment means no religion can ever manifest itself in laws.

No I am sorry, thats not what it says. It says no laws can manifest a religion. There is a big difference. The freedom of religion CAN affect the laws. The laws cant affect the freedom of religion.

And in the abortion debate, abortion being made legal, WAS unconstitutional, because now we have to pay tax money towards something that goes against our religion.

You really arent getting my drift on abortion. I am against assisted abortion being legal. There is no way that I am going to PAY for someone elses abortion. It goes COMPLETELY against my religion. That is abridging MY freedom of religion. To make assisted abortion illegal, is not to give fetuses rights or to make ALL abortion illegal. Just assisted. So if someone trys and successfully induces her own miscarriage, there is nothing illegal, and there shouldnt be anything illegal about that. It doesnt affect ME, and I dont affect her decisions.