Political Crossfire Forums

[joe christian]

Gilbert1908 wrote: 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.
How did you manage to leave in the first place? Working on some secret anti-gravity device, huh?

[joe christian]

sgtshortness wrote: 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.
Yes, but that is comparable to a Christian woman in Nazi Germany handing over Jewish women and their babies to the Gestapo.

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.

Quote: 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.
No. It is the original fault of the SCOTUS for legalizing the abortion industry. Secondly, it is the fault of the medical community for not applying the Hippocratic Oath (which forbids abortion unless to save the life of the mother) for membership in it. Third and lastly, it is the fault of those atheistic and secular abortionists who have abandoned medical healing practices in favor of administering the death penalty to innocent human life in bloody abortion chambers. We don't blame Christian women for being seduced by the Devil when only the Devil is responsible for introducing evil into the world.

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.

Quote: I don't see how homosexual men's rights (why not women?) have anything to do with this.
Homosexual men want marriage and adoption rights for themselves while they continue to support the secular right of Christian wives to have their husband's children aborted.

Quote: Still.. so what if Jews support abortion rights?
The most harm they should be able to do is to kill Jewish babies, and not interfere with the reproductive rights of Christian and Muslim fathers.

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.

Quote: 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.
Actually, by that very logic itself, it is the secular abortionists who have been accorded an overextension of rights when they interfere with the natural reproductive rights of Jewish, Christian and Muslim husbands.

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.

Quote: 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).

My argument is that Jewish, Christian and Muslim husbands should be treated with a little more respect and recognition than they are presently by the abortion community.

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.
Quote: 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.
Well, take your choice. Support mother's rights to kill or father's reproductive rights to procreate human life. All I know is that a society which kills it's own posterity is destined to be aborted itself one day.

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.
Quote: 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.
The mutual consent given and required in Christian marriage is a reasonable comprimise. Trouble is, the state does not recognize Christian marriage as a civil contract any more than it recognizes homosexual unions as a civil marriage.

joe christian wrote: 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.
Not in a mutually consented to Christian marriage agreement.

Quote: As I said above, the two extremes will definetly intrude on someone's rights.
Not in a mutually consented to Christian marriage agreement.

joe christian wrote: ]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: Ah, but religion shouldn't drive politics.
That's only a religious or secular political opinion since law and government are only extensions of religion by political means.

[Gilbert1908]

cap'n queasy wrote: See what I mean?

What is like to be right so often??? LOL

[steen]

Kumar wrote: As I pointed out before, freedom is confined to cases where others are not harmed. In which abortion fits just fine.

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? oh, an analogy. Pro-life analogies usually suck, and this one is no exception. The embryo is not "someone. It doesn't have the needed individuality.

Quote: 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. Also the case with abortions.

Quote: But with all the scientific evidence I have seen indicating the true origin of a new life, And what is this evidence?

Quote: 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. And, for good measure, you finish off with an outright falsehood. Could you please avoid such histrionics in the future?

[WsTxRedRaider06]

Quote: 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.


In all fairness, its not fair to label the pro-choice group in such a way....Just like its not fair to label someone who is pro-life, anti-choice....Both are falsehoods. Pro-choice simply means just that...There are just some choices I dont believe we should have the right to make, when it comes to the life or death of an unborn. This does not make me anti-choice, as I am for the right to choose. There are just some choices I dont believe we should have the right to make....

[Prole]

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Quote: 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.


In all fairness, its not fair to label the pro-choice group in such a way....Just like its not fair to label someone who is pro-life, anti-choice....Both are falsehoods. Pro-choice simply means just that...There are just some choices I dont believe we should have the right to make, when it comes to the life or death of an unborn. This does not make me anti-choice, as I am for the right to choose.
You are missing the point; that being pro-life is a personal standpoint about your own morals and interpretation of what is right and wrong; whereas being pro/anti-choice is a standpoint about what should be legally ethical.

If you are trying to remove a woman's ability to choose to have an abortion then you are, by definition, anti-choice. If you support them being able to make that choice, you are pro-choice. It's pretty much just basic English. That does not mean that you necessarily want them to make that choice, or that you believe that choice is right; merely that you believe the choice should lie with them.

The opposite of pro-life is kind of hard to place exactly; in fact I'd say that everyone is pro-life, but that we just have different interpretations of when life deserves protection. I'm pro life after the third trimester, but agnostic as to whether I am pro or anti choice from that point onwards. I'd say that pro-life by itself is somewhat misleading; pro-life from when? We are all aware that pro-life refers to believing that killing is wrong (to some degree) from conception, but in the literal sense and without knowing the context, everyone is pro-life. I mean, no one's anti-life.

[joe christian]

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Quote: 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.


In all fairness, its not fair to label the pro-choice group in such a way....Just like its not fair to label someone who is pro-life, anti-choice....Both are falsehoods. Pro-choice simply means just that...There are just some choices I dont believe we should have the right to make, when it comes to the life or death of an unborn. This does not make me anti-choice, as I am for the right to choose. There are just some choices I dont believe we should have the right to make....
Baby-killing isn't a choice. It is the final solution to a social problem.

Much like the mass killing of Jews wasn't much of a choice for most Germans in the Third Reich.

[sgtshortness]

Even if it's a solution it's still a choice.

[joe christian]

sgtshortness wrote: Even if it's a solution it's still a choice.
I suppose mass killings are always a choice.

The social question is whether any group within a population has the unmitigated right to choose to kill any other group of living human beings within society or a nation.

[spearsy23]

joe christian wrote: sgtshortness wrote: Even if it's a solution it's still a choice.
I suppose mass killings are always a choice.

The social question is whether any group within a population has the unmitigated right to choose to kill any other group of living human beings within society or a nation.

Of course not, good thing you added living human beings in there.

[joe christian]

The Underground wrote: joe christian wrote: sgtshortness wrote: Even if it's a solution it's still a choice.
I suppose mass killings are always a choice.

The social question is whether any group within a population has the unmitigated right to choose to kill any other group of living human beings within society or a nation.

Of course not, good thing you added living human beings in there.
I wanted to make sure that human beings living within their mother's womb were not excluded from the rest of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic population. Large families are vital to religious renewal and social regeneration, you know.

[sgtshortness]

I never said it was a good choice. Someone said it wasn't a choice. So I said it was a choice.

Believing in the same God shouldn't give you rights to control what other people do.

[spearsy23]

joe christian wrote: The Underground wrote: joe christian wrote: sgtshortness wrote: Even if it's a solution it's still a choice.
I suppose mass killings are always a choice.

The social question is whether any group within a population has the unmitigated right to choose to kill any other group of living human beings within society or a nation.

Of course not, good thing you added living human beings in there.
I wanted to make sure that human beings living within their mother's womb were not excluded from the rest of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic population. Large families are vital to religious renewal and social regeneration, you know.

A living human being wouldn't fit in a mothers womb and even if it would it couldn't breath so would die very quickly.

[joe christian]

sgtshortness wrote: Believing in the same God shouldn't give you rights to control what other people do.
Why not, since God gives those people who believe in Him the right to control what other people do.

[joe christian]

The Underground wrote: A living human being wouldn't fit in a mothers womb and even if it would it couldn't breath so would die very quickly.
Human babies are living human beings even while still in their mother's wombs. Just because they are not defined as persons by some stupid persons on the SCOTUS does not mean that human babies in their mother's womb are not living human beings.

[spearsy23]

joe christian wrote: The Underground wrote: A living human being wouldn't fit in a mothers womb and even if it would it couldn't breath so would die very quickly.
Human babies are living human beings even while still in their mother's wombs. Just because they are not defined as persons by some stupid persons on the SCOTUS does not mean that human babies in their mother's womb are not living human beings.
And just because you say so does? :lol:

maybe we should have a contest, we'll see rather the SCOTUS is smarter than you.

Actually them saying it DOES mean it by law.

[Skippy]

Quote: Human babies are living human beings even while still in their mother's wombs. Just because they are not defined as persons by some stupid persons on the SCOTUS does not mean that human babies in their mother's womb are not living human beings.

How did you come to this conclusion?

A 'person' does not exsist until a personality is present which 99% of reserchers will tell you is'nt until about 2 years into life. Even then however, most infants/toddlers cannot interact with, nor compreheand the world... to be frank, the fetus is'nt going to care if it is killed or not in the same way that somebody who has never exsisted cannot resent the fact that they we're never concived.

(BTW, First post to the fourm... Nice to meet you all)

[Skippy]

Quote: Why not, since God gives those people who believe in Him the right to control what other people do.

What? What do you mean? :?

[mattwa33193]

It absolutely amazes me that we have forgotten things we knew 250 years ago.

The laws of the United States are unique in that they reflect an understanding of the fact that criminalizing a behavior will rarely prevent it.

Murder is not prevented by laws, but by our knowledge that murder is wrong. If someone chooses to commit murder, the law serves to punish them, not prevent their action.

Same with theft. Same with any crime against another.

This is why drug laws are so ineffective. And it's why making abortion would be ineffective as well.

People, rightly or wrongly, perceive an abortion as a bad (or not so bad, depending on the person) thing that happens to them, not the fetus. All the laws, and protests, and disgusting commercials in the world will do nothing to change that.

Aside from arguments about choice or when life begins, I think abortion is a bad thing. At the very least it represents the destruction of potential, and destruction of something with an unknown nature (we don't know if this would have been a good person or a bad person, for example) is never good. I would love it if people stopped getting abortions, but laws won't make that happen. Education will. Educate people on how to avoid having something bad happen to them and they will, for the most part, listen and learn. Simply telling them not to do it, or threatening to punish them if they do will accompish nothing.

[sgtshortness]

Thank you, matwa33193.

What are you going on about, joe? Your god gives you the right to control what other people do?

What if I said my god gave me the right to control what you do?

Being a Christian doesn't mean you control every aspect of eveyrone else's life who's Christian.

Me being an Atheist doesn't give me the right to control what my atheistic friend does.

I'm sorry, but in the U.S. you can't say your God gives you the right to do something and therefore you can do it when it infringes on the rights of other people.