Political Crossfire Forums

[Gilbert1908]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: If I misunderstood please explain what possible purpose or positive reference the "Jewish doctors, killing Christian babies" has in the context of your point.

It always comes down to the same thing with these kooks.

I prefer to be called, Mr. Kook, if you don't mind.

[cap'n queasy]

Gilbert1908 wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: If I misunderstood please explain what possible purpose or positive reference the "Jewish doctors, killing Christian babies" has in the context of your point.

It always comes down to the same thing with these kooks.

I prefer to be called, Mr. Kook, if you don't mind.

You're not a kook, Gilbert.

Unless the "Jewish doctors, killing Christian babies" was a remark that you made.

If so, then you are a kook. :wink:

[LostSoul3412]

To: joe christian

Listen, your debates and claims about "non-Christians" and "secular abortionists" are beyond repercussion. If you are going to live your life by extreme faith and disregard the religion of others, that's your choice but it certainly is not mine. Seeing as how all of your debates are unproven and false, then there is no way of showing you love and acceptance for other people.

Your repeated attacks against myself, my family, and my loved ones has crossed the line of a respectful debate, and I have no interest in attacking others, only debating issues.

So I am going to do something that is my right, and remove you from my life.

Ignored.

[joe christian]

LostSoul3412 wrote: I'm a non-christian.
Ok. So you are not a Christian and you are not a father, but are the son of Catholic parents, just for the record.

Quote: In your mind, I am a second-class citizen who doesn't see the light in Christ.
You are only assuming and projecting that insinuation since I never suggested such a thing. It is your philosophy which treats American Christian Fathers like 2nd class citizens by denying them reproductive and family rights within normal marriage.

Quote: The Bible is not a factual claim, the Bible is a religious text that people believe in without scientific backing. That is what faith is after all. Belief without proof.
On that basis, Origin of Species is also a religious text based on faith and belief, since there is no scientific proof of evolutionary theory.

Quote: I am an individual with my own beliefs. If I don't intemperate the Bible as truth, then it isn't truth. Find a different source.
If you can find no truth in the Bible then there can be no such thing as truth beyond your narrow-minded and exclusionary temporal definition of it.

Quote: And as to your command in an attempt to subjugate me to your "superior Christian father" will... Make me. You can't tell me what to do anymore than the government legitimately can.
That's not the point of our discussion.

joe christian wrote: That's an oxymoron since observation of embryonic gender equals observation of embryonic human life.

Quote: No it doesn't. It is the observation of the potential child's gender. An embryo is the potential to become the actual like the egg to the chicken. Just because you can determine what the gender of the child will be at birth, does not mean that the child is alive as an embryo.
You are nit-picking by breaking human life down into stages of development and assigning legal status on an arbitrary atheistic basis.

joe christian wrote: Abortion, by definition is a non-Christian activity, unless performed in order to save the life of the mother because of pre-natal complications.

Quote: That does not mean that Christians are not having them performed on them.
We have already stated that 80% of US abortions are performed on Christian women without the consent of the rest of the American Christian population.

Quote: And if they are having them done, that would make them not Christian by your logic, correct?
No. That is an example of your twisted non-Christian logic and reason which is incapable of determining what someone else's religion really is. Atheistic and secular philosophers can no more determine the religion of other people than they can define religion itself.

joe christian wrote: It is not necessary to prove an assumption in religion if there is no evidence to the contrary.

Quote: Of course there is! External actions do not control the internal religion. So, in order to prove religion you would have to be inside the heart of the other person. And since that cannot be done, there is no way to prove religion. Just another hole in your false logic.
Nope. Rather is your feeble attempt to define and prove religion another indication of the state of your lost soul.

joe christian wrote: You are obviously in a state of criminal denial since the butchery and slaughter of 46 million American Babies constitutes not only a crime against humanity, but an American Holocaust which far exceeds anything the Third Reich ever anticipated.

Quote: The Third Reich did not provide choice to the Jews before they were massacred. Here, the mother has a choice to not have a child. Choice is the differing factor, and the ability to choose is part of what equates to freedom.
You and feminazis are limiting and restricting the religious right of choice to the atheist/secular abortionists and women only while excluding Christian Fathers from being democratically involved in the reproductive decision-making processes. That's fascist.

joe christian wrote: No one has the right to destroy another person's baby without their fully informed consent.

Quote: The mothers are choosing to have an abortion done.
We know that it is only the mother's who are choosing to allow atheist/secular abortionists to kill the offspring of Christian fathers without paternal consent. That's why Christian men and fathers are not responsible for the current anti-Christian butchery and holocaust in the US.

Quote: The doctor is not mandating abortions, or doing them without the mother's consent.
We know that also. What you fail to realize is that the feminazis and atheist/secular abortionists are mandating, is the exclusion of Christian fathers' from the reproductive decision-making process. That is discriminatory on the basis of both sex and religion. In cases of white abortionists killing black American babies without the father's informed consent, the element of racism is also added.

Quote: I show respect for every faith, maybe you should try it.
You show no respect for the faith of our Christian fathers, now, in the past or for the future.

[joe christian]

LostSoul3412 wrote: joe christian wrote: 85% of the US population is still as Christian as it was 2 or 300 years ago. Proof enough.

Evidence for that other than your evidence-free claim?

joe christian wrote: Now you are lying since I obviously said "most."

You're avoiding the issue. Can you prove it?
Proving religious beliefs is neither the issue nor topic of the thread. Abortion is.

joe christian wrote: Religion is a metaphysical factor transmitted through birth. Nothing to do with biology at all.

Quote: How is religion transmitted through birth when (from a Christian stance) God gave humanity the power of free will.
Your assumption that free will gives people the right to sin is refuted by the fact that Jesus commanded the woman taken in adultery to go and sin no more!

Free will doesn't give us the right to violate the 10 Commandments without being condemned and punished as sinners. Free will is just the mechanism God uses to seperate the wheat from the chaff, the just from the unjust and those who repent from incorrigible trangressors of His law.

Quote: Wouldn't that mean that people have the ability to decide their own religion for themselves, and not have their mindset dependent on their parents?
Sure. You can turn your back on God. Trouble is though, you then face and have to deal with the Devil's spirit all by yourself.

Quote: :owned:, 4 and 0 on my part.
Still into mental bondage, mind control, nazi propaganda and soul slavery, I see.

[Kumar]

anonymous4reasons wrote: Look at history, abortion has been taken place for thousands of years, it is just a known fact, and with it legal that means women can go into safe enviroments with proper equipment and medicines or in a back room with no medicine and a dirty knife. I hate the fact of loosing a beating heart, and I think abortion should be the last choice, but just because you make something illegal doesn't mean you stop it, you make it worse and unsafe.
If a woman insists on having an abortion for the sake of convenience and birth control, it's not my concern what kind of environment she gets it in. She is certainly not entitled to a clean, clinical environment. If she is so committed to killing, then she can accept the consequences of dirty knives and coat hangers.

[joe christian]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Descrimination: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners" (www.dictionary.com)

By labeling Atheists and Feminists as.. well, everything you said they are, you are discriminating against those two groups.

And believe me, I wish I was imagining things... I thought hate like this ended at Nuremburg.
Obviously, nazi discrimination, prejudice, persecution and hatred never did end at Nuremburg when it is perfectly obvious that atheistic US abortionists are still busy exterminating human life based on the sexist, racist and anti-Christian philosophies of feminazi buthchers of millions of African American Christian babies without the fully informed consent of the white and black American Christian community and population.
http://blackgenocide.org/

joe christian wrote: Examples of what, Lost Soul? What on earth are you babbling on about?

Quote: Your uncontrolled hate, discrimination, lack of respect, lack of acceptence, racism, anti-Semitism, and basic everything else that labels you as a bad Christian.
Who are you to judge and label any US Christians using standards other than God's own truth in the Bible, which you expressly disown?

If you think you can justify the sexist, racist and anti-Christian agendas of US feminazis and bloody atheist/secular abortion butchers by calling Christian Fathers names, you've got your right shoe on the wrong foot.

Christian Fathers aren't mass murdering US babies and burying their bodies in unmarked garbage dumps every year. Anti-Christian abortionists and other lost feminist souls in the US are.

[LostSoul3412]

Kumar wrote: If a woman insists on having an abortion for the sake of convenience and birth control, it's not my concern what kind of environment she gets it in. She is certainly not entitled to a clean, clinical environment. If she is so committed to killing, then she can accept the consequences of dirty knives and coat hangers.

It is not a commitment to killing, rather it is a commitment to choice and individual freedom. An individual has a right to their own body, their own life, and their own choice. To say that a mother is not entitled to a "clean, clinical environment" is expressing harm against others for exercising their choice.

[Kumar]

Lost Soul wrote:
It is not a commitment to killing, rather it is a commitment to choice and individual freedom. An individual has a right to their own body, their own life, and their own choice. To say that a mother is not entitled to a "clean, clinical environment" is expressing harm against others for exercising their choice.
As I pointed out before, freedom is confined to cases where others are not harmed. To address the commonly raised point of it being the mother's body, is it acceptable to kill someone on a plot of land you own? Of course not. The whole premise of being able to do whatever you desire on (or with) your property is absurd.

So no, this isn't about choice. Choice is, for example, having the ability to consensually marry an adult, regardless of his/her race, gender, religion, etc. No one else's liberty is impacted by this in any manner.

But with all the scientific evidence I have seen indicating the true origin of a new life, I cannot accept the argument that this has anything to do with choice. That is why there is no such thing as "pro-choice". There is only pro-death.

[joe christian]

Gilbert1908 wrote: joe christian wrote:
What "implication" and "demeanor" do you specifically find "offensive?"

I find the "angry" Christian emphasis counter productive. Just my opinion.
I don't see how it advances any real argument by constantly asserting Nazis, murderers etc.
Do you prefer to see Christians on the defensive side of an argument with non-Christians, rather than on the "offense?"

I am not looking to win a beauty or popularity contest. Rather do I expect Christian men to put anti-Christian abortionists on the defensive by demanding their good riddance from the Christian community.

joe christian wrote: It might prove intelligent on your part to point out where anyone has "used a clearly anti-Semitic remark."
Quote: If I misunderstood please explain what possible purpose or positive reference the "Jewish doctors, killing Christian babies" has in the context of your point.

Jewish doctors aborting Jewish babies is atrocious enough let alone their killing Christian offspring without the fully informed consent of the white and black American Christian fathers, community and population.

joe christian wrote: Thank you for sharing your sentiments with us. Would you mind sharing with the rest of us just whose POV you represent?

Quote: I represent my own POV and while I am a Catholic and if you read my arguments in this section argue constantly for the respect of human life at all stages of development, I do not see that it is either necessary nor effective to bring my religion into the discussion. The science and the facts are powerful enough and objectivly so to make my point.
While your POV is well taken and granted, it does not preclude the introduction of religious POV's into discussions on the topic of abortion since it is as much of a religious, sexual, racial and political issue as it may be regarded as a "scientific" one. Personally, I am not as interested in the biological aspects of abortion as I am in the legal ramifications and social consequences for American Christian fathers and families.

Quote: And again this belongs in the religion section, but as a Christian it is certainly my right to point out those things which I believe are wrong, but not my position to condemn or hate ANY human being or group of human beings.
I don't see or agree with the compartmentalization of abortion activities into different sections, forums or departments as if it is a topic only to be discussed in some college curriculum. Simply feeling uncomfortable discussing racial, sexist, political, philosophical and religious aspects of abortion in the US on this forum, is no reason to bar, ban, censor or discriminate against other posters from expressing their opinions and discussing abortion from those related POV's.

joe christian wrote: Are you a Christian Father? Were you ever a Christian fetus?
Quote: Your arguement on the Christianity of a fetus is interesting but I think you are taking an incorrect tact. Again this may be a subject better suited for the religion thread.
You seem intent on keeping religion out of a discussion on abortion. Is that not a form of free speech discrimination based on one's religious opinion?

Quote: I do think that you are correct that a fetus can indeed be "Christian" but it is no more automatic or obvious that me saying I am a Christian and therefore making it so.
Without our own personal confession, profession and practice of the Christian religion, though, no one else can identify or establish our religion for us with any greater authority than we ourselves can. If I baptize my child in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit of God, whether before or after it's birth, who is to say that my pre-born or new-born son is not Christian, especially in view of the admonition by St. Paul to take all thoughts captive for Christ?

The Gospel according to John states in it's opening verses that "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:3) Since Eve got her first-born son from "the Lord," after being intimate with Adam, it is physically impossible for any woman to conceive anything not first created by God.

Quote: But this kind of conversation moves into an arkane theological area which has nothing at all to do with arbortion.
I choose to disagree with this particular and peculiar contention of yours, and strongly believe that American Christian fathers should go on the literary and political offensive by challenging the self-proclaimed secular right of feminazis and atheistic abortionists to decide whether an American Christian father's posterity shall live or die, especially in cases where spouses are bonded in Christian marriage.

Quote: The unborn regardless of the religion of thier parents are innocent and deserve our protection, I'm sure you would agree.
An unqualified affirmitive reponse to your procreative supposition is in order. However, as a Christian father I feel morally limited and confined to only represent and speak for other Christian fathers like myself. Rather than precluding the right of other men and fathers to speak up for their own posterity, a limited Christian initiative for male reproductive rights within the confines of US marriage will open the doors of civil equality to all men who would like to be fathers one day.

Quote: As far as my status in life, I simply do not discuss anything here other than my opinions. I don't see that anecdotes or my status as a father, brother etc. makes anyones comments more or less valid.

Obviously, our positions differ slightly or somewhat since I believe that Christian men are basically discriminated against by secularists in US government, public education and the institutions of marriage and the family.

[joe christian]

LostSoul3412 wrote: To: joe christian

Listen, your debates and claims about "non-Christians" and "secular abortionists" are beyond repercussion. If you are going to live your life by extreme faith and disregard the religion of others, that's your choice but it certainly is not mine. Seeing as how all of your debates are unproven and false, then there is no way of showing you love and acceptance for other people.

Your repeated attacks against myself, my family, and my loved ones has crossed the line of a respectful debate, and I have no interest in attacking others, only debating issues.

So I am going to do something that is my right, and remove you from my life.

Ignored.
So much for so-called atheistic pro-choice claims that the arguments of Christian Fathers can be owned as if they were bound in abject slavery to be judged and manipulated by non-Christian POV's.

With lost souls like atheistic abortionists and secular feminazis on the loose in America, no white or black male American Christian is safe from their diabolical socialist attacks on Christian manhood and fatherhood in any Christian neighborhood.

[Gilbert1908]

joe christian wrote: Jewish doctors aborting Jewish babies is atrocious enough let alone their killing Christian offspring without the fully informed consent of the white and black American Christian fathers, community and population.

Let's not pussyfoot around this. Why did you choose Jewish doctors and Christian babies. What is your point, if abortion is as bad as you say, why single out Jewish doctors??? What possible meaning does that have in the context of your point?

No man regardless of religion, ethnicity etc. has ANYTHING to say about a woman's abortion. If you want to make that an issue fine, but you still have not made sense out of your singling out Jewish doctors.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: To address the commonly raised point of it being the mother's body, is it acceptable to kill someone on a plot of land you own? Of course not. The whole premise of being able to do whatever you desire on (or with) your property is absurd.

Excellent point. That demolishes much of the pro-infanticide argument.

Quote: Let's not pussyfoot around this. Why did you choose Jewish doctors and Christian babies.
I would venture that his motivation is not to oppose infanticide at all but to create a divisive climate. I doubt he is a Christian, or an American. There's something a little weird about how his comments are put together. Something is not quite right about them.

[joe christian]

Kumar wrote: If a woman insists on having an abortion for the sake of convenience and birth control, it's not my concern what kind of environment she gets it in. She is certainly not entitled to a clean, clinical environment. If she is so committed to killing, then she can accept the consequences of dirty knives and coat hangers.

But Kumar, you are showing no compassion for the poor woman who is intent on ridding herself of an unexpected and troublesome pregnancy brought about by fornicating with one of her neighbors. What about the poor little fetus? Should it not be entitled to a clean clinical abortion with sterilized medical equipment instead of being subjected to possibly fatal infections due to the use of dirty old knives and coathangars?

Please think about what you are saying before you compulsively rush your thoughts into print over the WWW without prior reflection and proper meditation upon them.

[joe christian]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Kumar wrote: If a woman insists on having an abortion for the sake of convenience and birth control, it's not my concern what kind of environment she gets it in. She is certainly not entitled to a clean, clinical environment. If she is so committed to killing, then she can accept the consequences of dirty knives and coat hangers.

It is not a commitment to killing, rather it is a commitment to choice and individual freedom.
Ho, ho ho, yuk, yuk, yuk.
Listen up to the feminazi voice.
We don't kill for sport or lust
But for women's freedom
And the right of choice.

Quote: An individual has a right to their own body, their own life, and their own choice.
Abortion butchers don't have any right to kill human fetuses which equally belong to a husband and wife, and who have not equally consented to have their children destroyed in a bloody abortuary.

Quote: To say that a mother is not entitled to a "clean, clinical environment" is expressing harm against others for exercising their choice.
No, it is not. It is just denying unwanted abortionists the immoral right to perform their bloody dirty business in modern medical facilities which could be far better used in life-saving medical treatments for the poor.

[joe christian]

Kumar wrote: Lost Soul wrote:
It is not a commitment to killing, rather it is a commitment to choice and individual freedom. An individual has a right to their own body, their own life, and their own choice. To say that a mother is not entitled to a "clean, clinical environment" is expressing harm against others for exercising their choice.
As I pointed out before, freedom is confined to cases where others are not harmed. To address the commonly raised point of it being the mother's body, is it acceptable to kill someone on a plot of land you own? Of course not. The whole premise of being able to do whatever you desire on (or with) your property is absurd.
The private property argument was upheld by the SCOTUS in the 1854 Dred Scott decision defending slaveholder's rights to own slaves.

The depersonalization of the human fetus by the same SCOTUS nowadays is similiar to it's pre-civil war recognition of black Americans as being only two-thirds of a person. Any woman who thinks a developing fetus is her personal property is no better than a white Southern slave-master. That's why all feminazis should be addressed as 'massa' rather than Ms.

[joe christian]

Gilbert1908 wrote: joe christian wrote: Jewish doctors aborting Jewish babies is atrocious enough let alone their killing Christian offspring without the fully informed consent of the white and black American Christian fathers, community and population.

Let's not pussyfoot around this. Why did you choose Jewish doctors and Christian babies. What is your point, if abortion is as bad as you say, why single out Jewish doctors??? What possible meaning does that have in the context of your point?
The names of several Jewish abortionists have appeared in the press over the years, some of whom were rather infamous like Bernard Nathanson. No Christian doctors have ever been identified as being associated with abortion clinics, so it stands to reason within the context of my arguments that all abortionists are either secularists, atheists, non-Christians of some sort of secular Jews. Since Jewish women only get 1% of the abortions in the US, and Christian women get upwards to 75%, and there are no signs on the doors of abortion clinics indicating the faith or religion of the abortionists, it stands to reason that while Roman Catholic and Protestant Fathers are out in the streets denouncing abortion, Jewish abortionists have actually been killing the offspsring of Catholic and Protestant parents without their fully informed parental consent.

Quote: No man regardless of religion, ethnicity etc. has ANYTHING to say about a woman's abortion.
That's just an obviously blatant lie, since all men are created equal and no married woman has any right to abort a Christian husband's child without his informed medical consent and written permission. Besides, it is also perfectly assumable that many, if not most abortion clinic owners and operators are men.

Quote: If you want to make that an issue fine, but you still have not made sense out of your singling out Jewish doctors.
I know it may seem difficult to comprehend in this day and age, but the fact of the matter is that many Jewish organizations support abortion on demand in the US whether for Jews, Christians or Muslims. A secular Jew is running for governor in NY State on the platform of championing abortion rights for women and marriage rights for homosexual men, regardless of their religious orientation or church affiliation.

Advocating abortion rights for Christian women without their husband's knowledge or consent is against mainstream concepts of Christianity and what a Christian marriage means. I don't mind your denigrating Christianity on the Internet should you so choose, but when our political representatives show their contempt for Christian marriages within the greater US Christian community, it is time for concerned Christian men to voice both their religious and political views.

[cap'n queasy]

See what I mean?

[Gilbert1908]

joe christian wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: joe christian wrote: Jewish doctors aborting Jewish babies is atrocious enough let alone their killing Christian offspring without the fully informed consent of the white and black American Christian fathers, community and population.

Let's not pussyfoot around this. Why did you choose Jewish doctors and Christian babies. What is your point, if abortion is as bad as you say, why single out Jewish doctors??? What possible meaning does that have in the context of your point?
The names of several Jewish abortionists have appeared in the press over the years, some of whom were rather infamous like Bernard Nathanson. No Christian doctors have ever been identified as being associated with abortion clinics, so it stands to reason within the context of my arguments that all abortionists are either secularists, atheists, non-Christians of some sort of secular Jews. Since Jewish women only get 1% of the abortions in the US, and Christian women get upwards to 75%, and there are no signs on the doors of abortion clinics indicating the faith or religion of the abortionists, it stands to reason that while Roman Catholic and Protestant Fathers are out in the streets denouncing abortion, Jewish abortionists have actually been killing the offspsring of Catholic and Protestant parents without their fully informed parental consent.

Quote: No man regardless of religion, ethnicity etc. has ANYTHING to say about a woman's abortion.
That's just an obviously blatant lie, since all men are created equal and no married woman has any right to abort a Christian husband's child without his informed medical consent and written permission. Besides, it is also perfectly assumable that many, if not most abortion clinic owners and operators are men.

Quote: If you want to make that an issue fine, but you still have not made sense out of your singling out Jewish doctors.
I know it may seem difficult to comprehend in this day and age, but the fact of the matter is that many Jewish organizations support abortion on demand in the US whether for Jews, Christians or Muslims. A secular Jew is running for governor in NY State on the platform of championing abortion rights for women and marriage rights for homosexual men, regardless of their religious orientation or church affiliation.

Advocating abortion rights for Christian women without their husband's knowledge or consent is against mainstream concepts of Christianity and what a Christian marriage means. I don't mind your denigrating Christianity on the Internet should you so choose, but when our political representatives show their contempt for Christian marriages within the greater US Christian community, it is time for concerned Christian men to voice both their religious and political views.

Yes it is all perfectly clear now. Glad we could clear up my anti-semitism accusation.

You will excuse me but I am due back on planet earth.

[sgtshortness]

joe christian wrote: The names of several Jewish abortionists have appeared in the press over the years, some of whom were rather infamous like Bernard Nathanson. No Christian doctors have ever been identified as being associated with abortion clinics, so it stands to reason within the context of my arguments that all abortionists are either secularists, atheists, non-Christians of some sort of secular Jews. Since Jewish women only get 1% of the abortions in the US, and Christian women get upwards to 75%, and there are no signs on the doors of abortion clinics indicating the faith or religion of the abortionists, it stands to reason that while Roman Catholic and Protestant Fathers are out in the streets denouncing abortion, Jewish abortionists have actually been killing the offspsring of Catholic and Protestant parents without their fully informed parental consent.

So what if the abortion doctors were Jewish or secular or "feminazis" as you like to say? It's still the Christian woman's decision to go and get an abortion.

joe christian wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: No man regardless of religion, ethnicity etc. has ANYTHING to say about a woman's abortion.

That's just an obviously blatant lie, since all men are created equal and no married woman has any right to abort a Christian husband's child without his informed medical consent and written permission. Besides, it is also perfectly assumable that many, if not most abortion clinic owners and operators are men.

So what if hte clinic operators are men? It's still an abortion. It's not the abortion operator's fault, it's the woman's fault for getting an abortion.

joe christian wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: If you want to make that an issue fine, but you still have not made sense out of your singling out Jewish doctors.

I know it may seem difficult to comprehend in this day and age, but the fact of the matter is that many Jewish organizations support abortion on demand in the US whether for Jews, Christians or Muslims. A secular Jew is running for governor in NY State on the platform of championing abortion rights for women and marriage rights for homosexual men, regardless of their religious orientation or church affiliation.

I don't see how homosexual men's rights (why not women?) have anything to do with this. Still.. so what if Jews support abortion rights?

joe christian wrote: Advocating abortion rights for Christian women without their husband's knowledge or consent is against mainstream concepts of Christianity and what a Christian marriage means. I don't mind your denigrating Christianity on the Internet should you so choose, but when our political representatives show their contempt for Christian marriages within the greater US Christian community, it is time for concerned Christian men to voice both their religious and political views.

Your rights only extend to the point where they conflict with other rights. By excersizing your right to control your women's reproductive rights, you have overextended yoru rights.

joe christian wrote: The private property argument was upheld by the SCOTUS in the 1854 Dred Scott decision defending slaveholder's rights to own slaves.

The depersonalization of the human fetus by the same SCOTUS nowadays is similiar to it's pre-civil war recognition of black Americans as being only two-thirds of a person. Any woman who thinks a developing fetus is her personal property is no better than a white Southern slave-master. That's why all feminazis should be addressed as 'massa' rather than Ms.

Whether or not human fetuses deserve the same treatment/rights as a human already born is disputed -- your argument lies on that assumption (not that I necessarily agree/disagree with you).

joe christian wrote: No, it is not. It is just denying unwanted abortionists the immoral right to perform their bloody dirty business in modern medical facilities which could be far better used in life-saving medical treatments for the poor.
It's still depriving the mother of her right. Unwanted abortionists? Opinion. Not unwanted by all. Immoral right? Opinion again. Bloody dirty business? Well.. bloody, probaly but dirty as in immoral? Opinion! Denying abortion rights is denying abortionists the right to practice abortion, but in addition -- not only -- to denying a mother's right, whether immoral or not.

joe christian wrote: So much for so-called atheistic pro-choice claims that the arguments of Christian Fathers can be owned as if they were bound in abject slavery to be judged and manipulated by non-Christian POV's. The problem is, allowing abortions only if the Christian father agrees, too, is in a way, abject slavery of the mother. If only there was some sort of compromise between the two.

[quote=joe christian]With lost souls like atheistic abortionists and secular feminazis on the loose in America, no white or black male American Christian is safe from their diabolical socialist attacks on Christian manhood and fatherhood in any Christian neighborhood.[/quote]
Lost souls? Not everyone agrees. White/black male American Christians are safe... if they don't have sex, of course! Anyways, allowing the opposite -- giving males control over whether or not the female has an abortion -- is against the woman. As I said above, the two extremes will definetly intrude on someone's rights.

Quote: You seem intent on keeping religion out of a discussion on abortion. Is that not a form of free speech discrimination based on one's religious opinion?

Ah, but religion shouldn't drive politics.