ABORTION vs. EXECUTION

[opinionator]

I will never stop being amazed at the frequency with which these two items are linked. The conversation often goes like this:

"I am against abortion. I just think it is wrong."

" Really?! Well, what about capital punishment? You're for that, aren't you?"

---------
-------------------------------------------------------------

For those who are against abortion, it is a rather simple matter. How can it possibly be 'right' to deny someone their opportunity for life? What could be more 'wrong'?

For those who are in favor of capital punishment, it is also a rather simple matter. Those who qualify for this ultimate sentence have not only deprived others of their 'right' to life, but have often done so in ways that boggle the imagination. They will undoubtedly do it again if given the opportunity, whether it is in prison or elsewhere. They have forfeited their right' to live by choosing to become predatory toward the rest of humanity.


The fact that these two are so often linked points out the tenuous nature of the argument for abortion on demand. This knee-jerk response insinuates that the utterly innocent ('original sin' not withstanding! )and the utterly guilty are somehow linked through some cosmic sense of balance.

Polls in this country will always show that a majority believe in capital punishment. As long as we have a free-market, make-what-you-can-of-yourself system, it will be that way, because we think that these rights should be zealously protected, and we understand that along with this freedom comes an additional responsibility to protect it.

And polls will always show that late-term abortion will always be against the will of the people, though 'regular' abortion is supported. This demonstrates that we are familiar with 'nuance', if nothing else.

But that is not enough for liberals. They will not be happy until folks can actually have the baby for a couple of weeks to see if they like it, then decide whether or not to kill it.

Obviously (disclaimer ahead) blah blah blah life of the mother. (There are few in our society who do not understand that this addendum should go without saying, and the fact that this is always the initial return-volley may point out the difficulty of defending this practice. The life of the mother is rarely in jeopardy in these cases.)

Late-term abortion is one of those little teeny tiny items that real, actual liberals cream for and most democrats do not support. Of course, as with all things, they will not publicly voice their dissent.

Greasing the gaff-hook for late-term abortion to become law is one of this Presidents goals.




.

[Moby]

I am against abortion too. I also think it's wrong but I think a woman deserve to have a choice. Even Sarah Palin was proud that her daughter made a choice.

However, I don't think there is awareness at first and I do think the woman has a right to decide, to a point. I am for laws banning late term abortions. I am not for laws banning all abortions or first trimester abortions.

Your assumptions, at least about me, are wrong. Flat out wrong but prejudice often is.

When I was faced with a situation more then 25 years ago and WE decided to keep a baby while in high school and opt for adoption, the church goers were terrible to the mother. She was not allowed to take communion. They asked her to stop coming to church. They harassed and teased her and I and a few others had to beat them in order to stop the taunting.

I found it disturbing that the people most against abortion were the people that treated her the worst for not having one. That was in Virginia when Jerry Falwell was just starting to spread his hate and it was just creeping its way in our direction.

This young woman was manipulated by a young man with more blood then brains. He was good at it too and lucky that only child came out of his antics. It can happen to any good girl. I assure you.

I could be for banning most abortions on two conditions.

1. We teach birth control and make it accessible to women of age.
2. We have social programs to help pregnant women and young single mothers.

Since I don't really want the social programs, I'm not going to support a ban on all abortions.

[Eagle1]

Even Sarah Palin was proud that her daughter made a choice.


What's with your fixation with Palin?

[opinionator]

I am against abortion too. I also think it's wrong but I think a woman deserve to have a choice. Even Sarah Palin was proud that her daughter made a choice.

However, I don't think there is awareness at first and I do think the woman has a right to decide, to a point. I am for laws banning late term abortions. I am not for laws banning all abortions or first trimester abortions.

Your assumptions, at least about me, are wrong. Flat out wrong but prejudice often is.

When I was faced with a situation more then 25 years ago and WE decided to keep a baby while in high school and opt for adoption, the church goers were terrible to the mother. She was not allowed to take communion. They asked her to stop coming to church. They harassed and teased her and I and a few others had to beat them in order to stop the taunting.

I found it disturbing that the people most against abortion were the people that treated her the worst for not having one. That was in Virginia when Jerry Falwell was just starting to spread his hate and it was just creeping its way in our direction.

This young woman was manipulated by a young man with more blood then brains. He was good at it too and lucky that only child came out of his antics. It can happen to any good girl. I assure you.

I could be for banning most abortions on two conditions.

1. We teach birth control and make it accessible to women of age.
2. We have social programs to help pregnant women and young single mothers.

Since I don't really want the social programs, I'm not going to support a ban on all abortions.


I think you misunderstood me. The opinions you stated here are those of most Americans.

I don't think that banning abortion is something that will ever be seriously discussed here in the USA, at least not at the federal level, and I think it is used as a rhetorical bludgeon by the left:
" Late-term abortion is wrong."
" next they will ban abortion!!"

25 years ago was a different time, but I despise people who abuse others like your lady suffered then. These wack-job religious types are the cross (ha!) that Conservatives must bear.

While it is nice to envision and discuss a world without baby-murder, every moment spent pursuing this lost cause is probably wasted.


.

[kres24GT]

I am for abortion. I can admit it though. I'd rather these fetuses be aborted than become welfare babies. I do think it is funny that people who hate freedom like Moby claim that it's about their belief in a woman's choice. LMAO. Just admit it, don't make ridiculous claims. Moby strongly labors for government to make choices for us all the time, but on aborting babies, he thinks women should choose, that is is funny.


Any fetus that will be deemed to receive welfare dollars should be aborted immediately. Or end welfare and let natural selection run its course, one of the two.

[Mr. Blue]

First off, I'm pro-education...as the topic of abortion should be rare cases and not happening at the level it is happening at. Educate kids on sex, contraceptives, STDs, and yes, even abstinence, should be the first line of defense.

I am pro-life though, but I don't think the government should be involved in this area at all. The federal government can't really micromanage people's lives, no matter what the topic is, no matter how I feel about it, there's just some things I think is a wasted effort.

Prohibition, prime example, the war on drugs, etc, the second you "ban" something a black market springs up to fill the void because ultimately people will do what they want to do and you can't regulate those types of choices.

So, Pro-life, but don't think the government should regulate this area...so...Pro-life, pro-choice, pro-whatever, the government shouldn't be involved.

[Mr. Blue]

I am for abortion. I can admit it though. I'd rather these fetuses be aborted than become welfare babies. I do think it is funny that people who hate freedom like Moby claim that it's about their belief in a woman's choice. LMAO. Just admit it, don't make ridiculous claims. Moby strongly labors for government to make choices for us all the time, but on aborting babies, he thinks women should choose, that is is funny.


Any fetus that will be deemed to receive welfare dollars should be aborted immediately. Or end welfare and let natural selection run its course, one of the two.

Whoooa, first off, is this pick on SirMoby week? Everyone relax, he's allowed to state his opinion, and it's becoming ridiculous that people keep saying what he "really means" when he says something. Just take a step back and focus on your own beliefs unless you've become thought police and can read his mind.

Also, part of what you're spouting sounds vaguely like eugenics...generally the idea of eugenics isn't all that appealing to me. The greatest asset our country possessed and will possess is it's citizens...somehow the government managed to make us forget the strength of the individual and their own self reliance.

[kres24GT]

Whoooa, first off, is this pick on SirMoby week? Everyone relax, he's allowed to state his opinion, and it's becoming ridiculous that people keep saying what he "really means" when he says something. Just take a step back and focus on your own beliefs unless you've become thought police and can read his mind.

Also, part of what you're spouting sounds vaguely like eugenics...generally the idea of eugenics isn't all that appealing to me. The greatest asset our country possessed and will possess is it's citizens...somehow the government managed to make us forget the strength of the individual and their own self reliance.


I agree he is entitled to his opinion, just funny when someone who very strongly supports government making choices for us claims to "support freedom" all of the sudden. Doesn't take a genius to see it is bullshit. Of all things to support freedom on, the one thing MOby picks is aborting fetuses. It's funny.


Welfare has ruined this country and created a class of our dumbest and poorest citizens breeding exponentially faster than our more intelligent and responsible citizens. There is no way to spin that, it's bad for the country, the planet, and the human race.

[Mr. Blue]

Welfare has ruined this country and created a class of our dumbest and poorest citizens breeding exponentially faster than our more intelligent and responsible citizens. There is no way to spin that, it's bad for the country, the planet, and the human race.

Okay, you support eugenics...

I know the case for eugenics, but I reject it because that implies that world ills are caused by overpopulation, that there's not enough for everyone, that there's a drain on the system. That I reject, the world is bountiful, it can supply, it can maintain it's population, and the main problem with the human race is that small percentile that controls, damages, and manipulates the system for their own gain.

[kres24GT]

Okay, you support eugenics...

I know the case for eugenics, but I reject it because that implies that world ills are caused by overpopulation, that there's not enough for everyone, that there's a drain on the system. That I reject, the world is bountiful, it can supply, it can maintain it's population, and the main problem with the human race is that small percentile that controls, damages, and manipulates the system for their own gain.


I didn't say I support anything, I said no mater how you spin it letting our dumbest citizens breed at much higher rates than our more intelligent ones is damaging to the race and the planet. This is not debatable. It's not a good thing.

I agree the world can support more people, I disagree it can support many uneducated ones with poor genes. Right now the poor and stupid breed much faster than the responsible and intelligent, much faster. This goes against nature and natural selection, it is not a good thing and damaging to the Earth.

[doctordog]

I didn't say I support anything, I said no mater how you spin it letting our dumbest citizens breed at much higher rates than our more intelligent ones is damaging to the race and the planet. This is not debatable. It's not a good thing.

I agree the world can support more people, I disagree it can support many uneducated ones with poor genes. Right now the poor and stupid breed much faster than the responsible and intelligent, much faster. This goes against nature and natural selection, it is not a good thing and damaging to the Earth.

Sounds like you are ready to fire up the ovens

[kres24GT]

Sounds like you are ready to fire up the ovens


I think the better option is let natural selection run its course. But if we aren't going to do that we can at least force abortions on those who should not breeding. At the rate government and welfare is expanding, soon it won't even be up for debate, it will just be plain necessary and we will have no option. We are already running huge deficits thinks to the politicians, with even more spending on the horizon. You will never be able to tax the people enough for all of it, they will revolt, nor can you borrow it all from China (who already forces abortion).

Simple logic here, but let's live in a delusional fantasy land rather than consider the consequences of our moral high horse instead.

[Mr. Blue]

I didn't say I support anything, I said no mater how you spin it letting our dumbest citizens breed at much higher rates than our more intelligent ones is damaging to the race and the planet. This is not debatable. It's not a good thing.

I agree the world can support more people, I disagree it can support many uneducated ones with poor genes. Right now the poor and stupid breed much faster than the responsible and intelligent, much faster. This goes against nature and natural selection, it is not a good thing and damaging to the Earth.

Are you serious?

Taken from wikipedia:

Eugenics is "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

Gee, doesn't that sound familiar, so...yeah, you support Eugenics, because you basically use it's exact definition. Better look out...someone might deem you too stupid to breed. Now that we've established that you believe in eugenics.

You equate poverty with a lack of intelligence, but I'm unwilling to say that. Poverty comes from a lack of the right kind of education. We send our kids to school, teach them certain things, but leave off the most important element...educating our children about money. A lot of people come out of high school and college with little or no understanding of money, how to manage money, and they're destined to fail because we've created a system that encourages poor choices.

What we need to do is educate and re-educate the population, because I still believe American citizens are the single greatest asset we have. Instead of squandering our resources around the world, we should be focusing our attention at home.

This doesn't mean expand the federal government, just the opposite, because if we properly educate we won't need welfare. Like the old saying, "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime"

[doctordog]

I think the better option is let natural selection run its course. But if we aren't going to do that we can at least force abortions on those who should not breeding. At the rate government and welfare is expanding, soon it won't even be up for debate, it will just be plain necessary and we will have no option. We are already running huge deficits thinks to the politicians, with even more spending on the horizon. You will never be able to tax the people enough for all of it, they will revolt, nor can you borrow it all from China (who already forces abortion).

Simple logic here, but let's live in a delusional fantasy land rather than consider the consequences of our moral high horse instead.

Be careful, I said something about natural selection during the Katrina aftermath and many left leaning people went crazy. It was my view that many of the stranded people there had options and chose not to exercise them because of their IQ.

[kres24GT]

Are you serious?

Taken from wikipedia:



Gee, doesn't that sound familiar, so...yeah, you support Eugenics, because you basically use it's exact definition. Better look out...someone might deem you too stupid to breed. Now that we've established that you believe in eugenics.

You equate poverty with a lack of intelligence, but I'm unwilling to say that. Poverty comes from a lack of the right kind of education. We send our kids to school, teach them certain things, but leave off the most important element...educating our children about money. A lot of people come out of high school and college with little or no understanding of money, how to manage money, and they're destined to fail because we've created a system that encourages poor choices.

What we need to do is educate and re-educate the population, because I still believe American citizens are the single greatest asset we have. Instead of squandering our resources around the world, we should be focusing our attention at home.

This doesn't mean expand the federal government, just the opposite, because if we properly educate we won't need welfare. Like the old saying, "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime"


The government isn't going to educate people, it needs them to stay ignorant. So that's out. Some will educate themselves, but most won't. The goal of welfare is to make sure they don't.

I equate poverty with a lack of intelligence and education.

I agree, less government, force these people to fend for themselves, some will starve, some will pick it up and become productive responsible members of society, the ones who starve, hopefully do so before breeding.

Once again, you miss the point though, it is not a matter of what I want, it's a matter of what will have to happen on our current path. Whether I want restrictive breeding or not does not matter,it is inevitable on our current road.


I support freedom and freedom to fail. You want to breed like a moron, go ahead, don't expect the taxpayers to cover your ass. However, if we are going to bail out those who breed foolishly then eugenics, or whatever name you want to give it, is coming, whether I want it or not is irrelevant.

[Life_Long_Dem!]

i am against both abortion and the death penalty, to me it is one and the same, killing is killing no matter what the case, I believe if someone murders another human life they deserve life in prison without the chance of parole. That to me is much harsher punishment and to give them the death penalty is an easy way out for them. To solve the prison crowding issue that would cause just release the jailed who are in on lesser offenses like drug issues and what not, to me problem solved.

[MintJulep]

i am against both abortion and the death penalty, to me it is one and the same, killing is killing no matter what the case, I believe if someone murders another human life they deserve life in prison without the chance of parole. That to me is much harsher punishment and to give them the death penalty is an easy way out for them. To solve the prison crowding issue that would cause just release the jailed who are in on lesser offenses like drug issues and what not, to me problem solved.At least you're consistent.

[Life_Long_Dem!]

yeah I mean what I say and say what I mean, I have a consistent set of beliefs and morals,I am not your typical liberal and i just think both the death penalty and abortion are wrong, you can not say that your for one and against the other....killing is killing no matter how you look at it. I think the harshest punishment for murders is life w/o the chance of parole. The only light they should see is from the prison rec yards and should spend night and day thinking about the life they took. Yes our prisons are way overcrowded but if we release the people with lesser offenses such as all the people locked up on minor drug charges that will free up alot of space.

[opinionator]

i am against both abortion and the death penalty, to me it is one and the same, killing is killing no matter what the case, I believe if someone murders another human life they deserve life in prison without the chance of parole. That to me is much harsher punishment and to give them the death penalty is an easy way out for them. To solve the prison crowding issue that would cause just release the jailed who are in on lesser offenses like drug issues and what not, to me problem solved.


Yep, very well-reasoned post. The problems here are that abortion is the first and primary 'holy' article of the liberal church. And it is impossible to prevent murderers from murdering again while they are in prison.




.



.

[Richard Poor]

I am against abortion too. I also think it's wrong but I think a woman deserve to have a choice. ...
What choice does a women deserve? The choice to kill what she considers to be a mistake or burden? Does a man have a choice to kill a mistake or burden too? If a man is not happy in his marriage, should he have the right to make a choice and opt for killing his wife? Of course not.

THE CHOICE COMES BEFORE.

A woman, and a man, have a choice to either engage in sex or not. Then they have a choice to use contraception or not. These are the choices every American adult is entitled to.

MURDER IS NOT A CHOICE, IT IS A CRIME.

[Mr. Blue]

What choice does a women deserve? The choice to kill what she considers to be a mistake or burden? Does a man have a choice to kill a mistake or burden too? If a man is not happy in his marriage, should he have the right to make a choice and opt for killing his wife? Of course not.

THE CHOICE COMES BEFORE.

A woman, and a man, have a choice to either engage in sex or not. Then they have a choice to use contraception or not. These are the choices every American adult is entitled to.

MURDER IS NOT A CHOICE, IT IS A CRIME.

You ignore the guy in the thread pushing eugenics and you jump on the guy that actually thinks abortion is wrong and did the right thing when he was a youth.

There's no way the government can enforce this choice one way or another. We might push it to the back alleys again, we might create a black market for it, but there's no way to contain it. The government just can't micromanage people's existence like that.

Alcohol, drugs, fast foods, cigarettes, etc, etc, etc, there comes a point where the government can't micro-management the human existence.

Now, I think there should be a major push in educating people about sex. Those same bible thumpers that want to make abortion illegal, also want to keep sex ed out of schools, and its the first brick in the wall of failure on this topic.

[kres24GT]

You ignore the guy in the thread pushing eugenics and you jump on the guy that actually thinks abortion is wrong and did the right thing when he was a youth.

There's no way the government can enforce this choice one way or another. We might push it to the back alleys again, we might create a black market for it, but there's no way to contain it. The government just can't micromanage people's existence like that.

Alcohol, drugs, fast foods, cigarettes, etc, etc, etc, there comes a point where the government can't micro-management the human existence.

Now, I think there should be a major push in educating people about sex. Those same bible thumpers that want to make abortion illegal, also want to keep sex ed out of schools, and its the first brick in the wall of failure on this topic.


Government running our lives is what the people want. Of course its a failure, and it is very much so common sense that government cannot micromanage us, but that doesn't stop 99% of Americans casting their ballots for Bigger Government every time an election rolls around.


Americans fear freedom, and the politicians and the Big Government lovers are quick to prey on that fear. Government tells us what we can do with out bodies all the time, and Americans wouldn't have it any other way. Now if they tell us cannot have abortions, or we must be forced to, that's business as usual in the Big Government world we have demanded.

When you favor and vote for Big Government and against freedom (which when you vote Republican or Democrat, is exactly what you do) you have cast your vote for oppression. You have said, "I want government dictating my life". At this point you must take the good with the bad. You can't scream for government to run your life and make choices for you because of a fear of freedom, then cry liberty at the first sign you don't like it.



My point I made was people on this board cry freedom to choose to abort fetuses, yet they oppose freedom anywhere else they can. It's humorous. Sorry some cannot appreciate it.

[Mr. Blue]

Government running our lives is what the people want. Of course its a failure, and it is very much so common sense that government cannot micromanage us, but that doesn't stop 99% of Americans casting their ballots for Bigger Government every time an election rolls around.


Americans fear freedom, and the politicians and the Big Government lovers are quick to prey on that fear. Government tells us what we can do with out bodies all the time, and Americans wouldn't have it any other way. Now if they tell us cannot have abortions, or we must be forced to, that's business as usual in the Big Government world we have demanded.

When you favor and vote for Big Government and against freedom (which when you vote Republican or Democrat, is exactly what you do) you have cast your vote for oppression. You have said, "I want government dictating my life". At this point you must take the good with the bad. You can't scream for government to run your life and make choices for you because of a fear of freedom, then cry liberty at the first sign you don't like it.



My point I made was people on this board cry freedom to choose to abort fetuses, yet they oppose freedom anywhere else they can. It's humorous. Sorry some cannot appreciate it.

Your point is there's "inferior" people that shouldn't breed. That to me just didn't sit right. You equate poverty with a lack of intelligence and you're wrong, completely and totally wrong.

I grew up really poor. That didn't stop me from graduating in the top 1% of my class. It didn't stop me from going to college and having a 3.8 GPA. I had to drop out of college 15 credits short of a degree because my family was in financial need...so I quit, took 3 jobs, and in time ended up running a few decent businesses.

Poverty did not equal a lack of intelligence, it was just circumstances, and the only thing that I had going for me was a grandfather that had old world values and a work ethic he passed onto me.

This is what's wrong with America, we've lost our work ethic, we try to keep up with the Joneses when we don't have to, and we idolize "things" more than we do responsibility.

When I was a kid, I didn't have expensive shoes, clothing, etc, nope. When I worked odd jobs when I was a teen, it wasn't for pocket money or blowing it on some stupid crap teens blow there money on, it was to help put food on the table. My grandfather taught me the value of hardwork. Taught me that there's no shame in working at any job as long as you provide for you family. This is what we need to teach our children.

This work ethic is what we lack. This pride in doing a good job is what we lack. The education of our children failing to teach them that there is no shame in any job as long as you work hard.

You see people making fun of the kid that takes a job at McD's to make ends meet, yet they would never think of mocking someone that's taking a slice of government cheese.

Abortion is wrong to me, categorizing who should and shouldn't give birth, is wrong to me, and pushing a stereotype is wrong. I believe, and will always believe, that our citizens are a great asset.

We have however, allowed our assets to become somewhat useless. It's like taking an athlete, feeding him candy, cake, and everything else. Telling him not to train and to sit on the couch all day. Is that athlete going to be an athlete with that type of lifestyle? No.

We have a failed system. We need to change the failed system. We don't need to implement selective breeding.

[Zebulon0351]

Abortions have been around long before it was ever considered to be an issue of morality or legality. Roe V Wade determined that it was unconstitutional to violate a woman's right to privacy guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.

Now in saying that, I would be the last person to scream from building tops that a woman has a right to choose. People who use abortions solely as a form of birth-control are despicable and should be out-casted from society.

But, the case made by Roe V Wade hold water very well, and as Americans, we can't pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we want to honor.

[kres24GT]

Your point is there's "inferior" people that shouldn't breed. That to me just didn't sit right. You equate poverty with a lack of intelligence and you're wrong, completely and totally wrong.

I grew up really poor. That didn't stop me from graduating in the top 1% of my class. It didn't stop me from going to college and having a 3.8 GPA. I had to drop out of college 15 credits short of a degree because my family was in financial need...so I quit, took 3 jobs, and in time ended up running a few decent businesses.

Poverty did not equal a lack of intelligence, it was just circumstances, and the only thing that I had going for me was a grandfather that had old world values and a work ethic he passed onto me.

This is what's wrong with America, we've lost our work ethic, we try to keep up with the Joneses when we don't have to, and we idolize "things" more than we do responsibility.

When I was a kid, I didn't have expensive shoes, clothing, etc, nope. When I worked odd jobs when I was a teen, it wasn't for pocket money or blowing it on some stupid crap teens blow there money on, it was to help put food on the table. My grandfather taught me the value of hardwork. Taught me that there's no shame in working at any job as long as you provide for you family. This is what we need to teach our children.

This work ethic is what we lack. This pride in doing a good job is what we lack. The education of our children failing to teach them that there is no shame in any job as long as you work hard.

You see people making fun of the kid that takes a job at McD's to make ends meet, yet they would never think of mocking someone that's taking a slice of government cheese.

Abortion is wrong to me, categorizing who should and shouldn't give birth, is wrong to me, and pushing a stereotype is wrong. I believe, and will always believe, that our citizens are a great asset.

We have however, allowed our assets to become somewhat useless. It's like taking an athlete, feeding him candy, cake, and everything else. Telling him not to train and to sit on the couch all day. Is that athlete going to be an athlete with that type of lifestyle? No.

We have a failed system. We need to change the failed system. We don't need to implement selective breeding.


I grew up poor as well. You clearly can't read or just refuse to get it, not sure which.

[Richard Poor]

You ignore the guy in the thread pushing eugenics and you jump on the guy that actually thinks abortion is wrong and did the right thing when he was a youth.I did not read the whole thread - I began to, but his post made me sick and I responded to that post before closing the thread... I was not aware that I had some duty or obligation to respond to every post that came before me... in other words, you are reading too much into what I did not do - just focus on what I did do.

There's no way the government can enforce this choice one way or another. We might push it to the back alleys again, we might create a black market for it, but there's no way to contain it. The government just can't micromanage people's existence like that.What are you talking about? The government cannot "micromanage" murder? Crimes, such as rape, are committed everyday... should all crimes including rape be deemed legal since the government cannot "micromanage" people's lives? Of course not.

Alcohol, drugs, fast foods, cigarettes, etc, etc, etc, there comes a point where the government can't micro-management the human existence.Wow, you equate going to have an abortion with smoking a cigarette or buying fast-food through the drive-through? You cannot be serious.

Now, I think there should be a major push in educating people about sex. Those same bible thumpers that want to make abortion illegal, also want to keep sex ed out of schools, and its the first brick in the wall of failure on this topic.Lol, advice from the man who believes that buying a Big-Mac is no different than to going in and having a murder performed...

Talking about sex to a child is to ignite their curiosity before they are ready. Moreover, talking about sex in a positive manner in school also lends acceptance to sex… acceptance that would otherwise not be there. However, you are right in the fact that not talking about it alone would not work. A holistic approach is necessary here; liberals love to be brainwashed and have become exceedingly good at brainwashing others - just look at the result of their attacks on smoking and smokers or on how they managed to elect a racist with little-to-no leadership expereince as president... they can do the same, if not more, for life as what they did for "hope" and "change" - if this power would be used for good, lives could be saved. In other words, there needs to be more done than simply not talking about sex in school - the media, for example, also needs to be augmented, in order for this to work.

[Zebulon0351]

Talking about sex to a child is to ignite their curiosity before they are ready. Moreover, talking about sex in a positive manner in school also lends acceptance to sex… acceptance that would otherwise not be there. However, you are right in the fact that not talking about it alone would not work. A holistic approach is necessary here; liberals love to be brainwashed and have become exceedingly good at brainwashing others - just look at the result of their attacks on smoking and smokers or on how they managed to elect a racist with little-to-no leadership expereince as president... they can do the same, if not more, for life as what they did for "hope" and "change" - if this power would be used for good, lives could be saved. In other words, there needs to be more done than simply not talking about sex in school - the media, for example, also needs to be augmented, in order for this to work.

I don't think anyone is promoting busting out the cucumbers and condoms in Kindergarten class rooms. But you are acting as if kids listen to us in the first place. It is obvious that pushing straight abstinence is not keeping kids from having sex.
With that said, I also don't think the kids need to have sex-ed classes that teach contraception. There needs to be a very comfortable medium to where the kids are taught about the dangers of sex, the consequences of teen pregnancy, and how birth control is not 100% effective, but also including instruction on safe sex practices. It is ultimately their decision.

I just feel many are so stuck in their ways of promoting morality and purity that they refuse to admit that it just doesn't work by itself

[Binky]

Well, I don't think it's anyone's business what a woman does with her body. If she wants to have an abortion it's between God and herself. There are certainly enough unwanted children already. While it isn't something I would do, I defend the right for one to do it. I'm sure there are a lot of boys/men out there that were delighted when they found out they weren't going to have to support the baby. It's all about choice. Some make good choices for their situation while others make horrendous ones. And others should just mind their own business and butt out.

[Richard Poor]

With that said, I also don't think the kids need to have sex-ed classes that teach contraception. There needs to be a very comfortable medium to where the kids are taught about the dangers of sex, the consequences of teen pregnancy, and how birth control is not 100% effective, but also including instruction on safe sex practices. It is ultimately their decision.Why? Why not try not teaching sex, not supporting sex to children via the media, and even going so far as to start a public campaign in favor of abstinence - as I wrote before, look at the results on smoking and Obama. If lies can be perpetuated to the point of belief, how much more effective can the truth be.

You say it is their decision, yet we have seen the influence of the media at work shaping decisions… at one point, nearly all Americans smoked; now too many are treated as second-class citizens within their own nation. Why? Because of campaigns against them, which have led discriminatory laws. At one point, most, if not nearly all Americans were against abortion/murder… now after years of liberal indoctrination, people support the sick practice. Minds have been, and can be, manipulated… again, see “hope” and “change”.

I just feel many are so stuck in their ways of promoting morality and purity that they refuse to admit that it just doesn't work by itselfI already stated that it does not work by itself - why do liberals insist on rallying against points that were already made time and time again.

In the end however, we have digressed for this was not a sex-ed debate, but rather a referendum on murder/abortion. That is what I will try to respond to in this thread.

[Mr. Blue]

I did not read the whole thread - I began to, but his post made me sick and I responded to that post before closing the thread... I was not aware that I had some duty or obligation to respond to every post that came before me... in other words, you are reading too much into what I did not do - just focus on what I did do.

It seems that a group of you want to jump on SirMoby regardless of what he's posting. It doesn't matter what thread he's in or what he says, there's an immediate chorus of people jumping on every bit of minutia he posts.

What are you talking about? The government cannot "micromanage" murder? Crimes, such as rape, are committed everyday... should all crimes including rape be deemed legal since the government cannot "micromanage" people's lives? Of course not.

There was abortion before it was legalized. Just because it wasn't acceptable, wasn't "legal" didn't mean it wasn't happening at an uncomfortable rate. In fact some form of infanticide has been recorded since people started recording such things. In England the practice was to give birth to the child, if it was a girl, and they weren't able to care for it, they'd bury the child.

Point being, government cannot stop abortions from happening. Instead of sanctioning it or outlawing it, it shouldn't get involved. There's no way the government can control it. I stand by the libertarian view on the topic.

Wow, you equate going to have an abortion with smoking a cigarette or buying fast-food through the drive-through? You cannot be serious.

Cigarette's kill how many people a year? If memory serves me right it's over 400,000 per year. Being Obese kills how many? Drunk Driving Kills how many? Driving accidents kill how many? The government can't stop people from bad decisions. Unless you want the government in your life 24/7 they can't stop people from making bad decisions.

Lol, advice from the man who believes that buying a Big-Mac is no different than to going in and having a murder performed...

Talking about sex to a child is to ignite their curiosity before they are ready. Moreover, talking about sex in a positive manner in school also lends acceptance to sex… acceptance that would otherwise not be there. However, you are right in the fact that not talking about it alone would not work. A holistic approach is necessary here; liberals love to be brainwashed and have become exceedingly good at brainwashing others - just look at the result of their attacks on smoking and smokers or on how they managed to elect a racist with little-to-no leadership expereince as president... they can do the same, if not more, for life as what they did for "hope" and "change" - if this power would be used for good, lives could be saved. In other words, there needs to be more done than simply not talking about sex in school - the media, for example, also needs to be augmented, in order for this to work.

Do you not like sex? As you said, "talking about sex in a positive manner" so...sex should be talked about in a negative way? Since when is sex an evil thing? Did the bible tell you that?

You don't want to talk about sex education and abortion in the same sentence but why? Don't you know where babies come from little Richard? Or do you still believe they sprung from a cabbage patch? What draconian notions do you have about sex?

Want to reduce the number of abortions dramatically each year? Teach teens about sex, all the options including abstinence, contraceptives, etc. Don't live in the dark ages.

[doctordog]

Well, I don't think it's anyone's business what a woman does with her body. If she wants to have an abortion it's between God and herself. There are certainly enough unwanted children already. While it isn't something I would do, I defend the right for one to do it. I'm sure there are a lot of boys/men out there that were delighted when they found out they weren't going to have to support the baby. It's all about choice. Some make good choices for their situation while others make horrendous ones. And others should just mind their own business and butt out.

What about the father?

We can hold him accountable for child support after the baby is born but he gets no say until it is born, that is a load of crap.

[Richard Poor]

It seems that a group of you want to jump on SirMoby regardless of what he's posting. It doesn't matter what thread he's in or what he says, there's an immediate chorus of people jumping on every bit of minutia he posts.It does not seem that way at all; I quoted the text I responded to...



There was abortion before it was legalized. Just because it wasn't acceptable, wasn't "legal" didn't mean it wasn't happening at an uncomfortable rate. In fact some form of infanticide has been recorded since people started recording such things. In England the practice was to give birth to the child, if it was a girl, and they weren't able to care for it, they'd bury the child.I never stated that no abortion/infanticide ever took place in history before Roe... rather, I alluded to the failed attempts, via traditional methods, by those who want to make abortion legal - traditional legal methods, such as passing a law[s] failed and were bypassed in favor of stacking the Supreme Court. Such legislation could not pass because it was unpopular before...

Point being, government cannot stop abortions from happening. Instead of sanctioning it or outlawing it, it shouldn't get involved. There's no way the government can control it. I stand by the libertarian view on the topic.You can stand by it, but that does not make it any more correct.

The government cannot stop all murder and rape... so, should all murder and rape then be legalized? There is no way the government can control it, right? So then the government should just step aside on these issues... right? WRONG!



Cigarette's kill how many people a year? If memory serves me right it's over 400,000 per year. Being Obese kills how many? Drunk Driving Kills how many? Driving accidents kill how many? The government can't stop people from bad decisions. Unless you want the government in your life 24/7 they can't stop people from making bad decisions.Wow... how many people have heart-attacks in America... how many people's heart/health were affect by their eating habits and/or life style choices. Just because someone's death was not categorized as being caused by obesity, it does not mean that choices, such as fast food, did not play a role.

In the end though, I am not arguing in favor of or against cigarettes, rather I am pointing out how people are being, and have been, manipulated one way or the other by the media - that was all.



Do you not like sex? As you said, "talking about sex in a positive manner" so...sex should be talked about in a negative way? Since when is sex an evil thing? Did the bible tell you that?I think anytime one [especially if they are not the parent] talks about sex to an innocent minor, then that will have negative consequences... common sense and life experience have taught me that.

You don't want to talk about sex education and abortion in the same sentence but why? Don't you know where babies come from little Richard? Or do you still believe they sprung from a cabbage patch? What draconian notions do you have about sex?Oh geez, Ms. Psychologist reared her ugly head... bah.

Want to reduce the number of abortions dramatically each year? Teach teens about sex, all the options including abstinence, contraceptives, etc. Don't live in the dark ages.Yeah, that has really helped... how many school/unmarried/teen pregnancies are there now and contrast that number to the ones in the 1940's and 50's before sex-ed was taught.

You are seriously addicted to the kool-aid.

[opinionator]

Are you serious?

Taken from wikipedia:



Gee, doesn't that sound familiar, so...yeah, you support Eugenics, because you basically use it's exact definition. Better look out...someone might deem you too stupid to breed. Now that we've established that you believe in eugenics.

You equate poverty with a lack of intelligence, but I'm unwilling to say that. Poverty comes from a lack of the right kind of education. We send our kids to school, teach them certain things, but leave off the most important element...educating our children about money. A lot of people come out of high school and college with little or no understanding of money, how to manage money, and they're destined to fail because we've created a system that encourages poor choices.

What we need to do is educate and re-educate the population, because I still believe American citizens are the single greatest asset we have. Instead of squandering our resources around the world, we should be focusing our attention at home.

This doesn't mean expand the federal government, just the opposite, because if we properly educate we won't need welfare. Like the old saying, "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime"



Is is interesting that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a staunch proponent of selective breeding/eugenics/euthanasia.

When those on the right suggest that a bit less breeding by the poorest and weakest of us might be a good thing, they are immediately called the most heinous epithets.

However, liberals encourage the routine abortion of children and are working toward a world of 'engineered' humans and the elimination of those who are weak, infirm , old or deemed useless.

Don't land in a coma, or they will starve you to death in your sleep.

The unbridled joy with which they hunted and killed Teri Shiavo should serve as instruction to all of us.



.

[Zebulon0351]

Why? Why not try not teaching sex, not supporting sex to children via the media, and even going so far as to start a public campaign in favor of abstinence - as I wrote before, look at the results on smoking and Obama. If lies can be perpetuated to the point of belief, how much more effective can the truth be.

First of all it is because our society as a whole is hypocritical. Its OK for anyone to smoke.. but if this person is running for a high Public office, he must present a high moral standing to gain the respect of the voters. Every politician and preacher do it. Its not new, and never will be.

But what is "truth?" Who is it that creates the definition of "truth" as it is applied in today's society? I think you are referring to a truth of yesterday, but that truth does not exist anymore. Kids are going to have sex. I would be damned if I am just going to repeat over and over to my kids to not have sex... not have sex..... NOT HAVE SEX..... and actually get offended if they do it anyway... I mean, I was the same way. It won't stop me from trying and hoping, but Im also not going to keep them on a short leash either.

It is sad to see the ever present existence of sex everywhere you look in today's world. Kids are exposed to sexuality long before they know what it is. But when sex is present in everything from magazine ads to commercials and even some cartoons, what exactly is it that YOU Mr. "Lone Ranger" are going to do any different than the many other public abstinence campaigns? And do you suggest we bring our media back to the days of Lassie, Old Yellar, The Partridge Family, and Sunny and Cher?

I tell you what... I'll even consider you building a movement of a few hundred thousand supporters and you will not be able to socially construct one piece of your morally-correct world vision.

You say it is their decision, yet we have seen the influence of the media at work shaping decisions… at one point, nearly all Americans smoked; now too many are treated as second-class citizens within their own nation. Why? Because of campaigns against them, which have led discriminatory laws. At one point, most, if not nearly all Americans were against abortion/murder… now after years of liberal indoctrination, people support the sick practice. Minds have been, and can be, manipulated… again, see “hope” and “change”.


I smoke a pack a day, and it really doesn't bother me if I walk into a non-smoking establishment. Yeah, it sucks, but why should I be pissed of because other people don't want to smell my smoke? Go on and do a campaign against me... shit.. it may make me quit.. who knows? (But I doubt it)

And when was this "one point?" Are you talking about the "one point" when people maybe weren't having abortions, but they were burning people at the stake because they were a witch?

Or was it the point when no abortions were happening, but it was still OK to kill your yardboy if he didn't work hard enough?

Or it may have been at the point when there weren't many abortions at all, but it was still OK to arrest a young black lady who wouldn't give up her seat to a white man?

I give up...so PLEASE tell me Rich. Exactly when was this "one point" when the society of our country lived up to your eutopian morals?

Maybe it was the time when Andrew Jackson ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court and sent the Indians packing on the trail of tears..... (I bet that is it)

[Zebulon0351]

Yeah, that has really helped... how many school/unmarried/teen pregnancies are there now and contrast that number to the ones in the 1940's and 50's before sex-ed was taught.

You are seriously addicted to the kool-aid.

The entire world has changed since the 40's and 50's. YOUR Kool-aid is on the shortbus, time for school.

[Richard Poor]

The entire world has changed since the 40's and 50's. YOUR Kool-aid is on the shortbus, time for school.
Great way to change the subject... lol... I wonder why you are so eager to change the subject?

That is a rhetorical question by the way… the answer is all too obvious.

[Zebulon0351]

Great way to change the subject... lol... I wonder why you are so eager to change the subject?

That is a rhetorical question by the way… the answer is all too obvious.

How am I changing the subject?

You doing a bivariate comparison on two variables that are not dependent on each other. TIME is the third variable to place into the equation, and if you can't see that clearly maybe you should quit licking the back window and pay attention to what the rest of us are doing.

[Richard Poor]

First of all it is because our society as a whole is hypocritical. Its OK for anyone to smoke.. but if this person is running for a high Public office, he must present a high moral standing to gain the respect of the voters. Every politician and preacher do it. Its not new, and never will be.

But what is "truth?" Who is it that creates the definition of "truth" as it is applied in today's society? Blah, blah, blah…Lol, if you do not know what the “truth” is, then why did you expand so much effort running from it with all your words? Why even bother to invoke seome abstract epistemological argument in order to hide from the truth if you do not know it?

The truth about Obama is that he is a racist with little to no leadership experience… he ran an empty campaign based on high sounding, but vacuous words and lies.

The truth in regards to abortion is that it is willful murder of a human.

The truth about sex-ed in school is that if sex was not propagated via the media and espoused by our school system the number of pregnant kids would decline dramatically.

I think you are referring to a truth of yesterday, but that truth does not exist anymore.No, rather you WANT to believe that I am referring to the truth of yesterday, just as you WANT to believe that there is no more truth today. Simply because you WANT to believe that something does not exist, does not mean that it does not exist.

Keep telling yourself that infanticide is not murder and just tap your heels together Dorothy… sadly, it is far too convenient/easy for liberals to just dismiss truth[s] as something of the past or something that no longer exists – that is the first step in indoctrination, deny the truth and thus any lie can seem real.


Blah, blah, blah… what exactly is it that YOU Mr. "Lone Ranger" are going to do any different than the many other public abstinence campaigns? And do you suggest we bring our media back to the days of Lassie, Old Yellar, The Partridge Family, and Sunny and Cher? Well, not the last two, but yes… we can create better shows that espouse morality and engender ethics as has once been done and can be done again… the question is not whether it can be done, the question is whether people are willing to do this for their children.

Steps can be taken; something can be done similar to what has been done with ant-smoking ads and Obama propganda.


Blah, Blah, blah… I give up...so PLEASE tell me Rich. Exactly when was this "one point" when the society of our country lived up to your eutopian morals?

Maybe it was the time when Andrew Jackson ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court and sent the Indians packing on the trail of tears..... (I bet that is it) Wow, so much drama... how did you get from people once smoked more than they do today and were once not in favor of infanticide/abortion as much as they appear to be today, to a "utopian society" or Andrew Jackson [the father of your party by the way].

You quoted it yourself:


...at one point, nearly all Americans smoked... At one point, most, if not nearly all Americans were against abortion/murderWhat, you never knew that more people smoked before than they do today in America? Really? Do you want me to hold your hand and dig up some numbers to point out the obvious... bah, do your own homework.

Or is that you did not know that people were against abortions at one time? Even if you had no knowledge of recent history, one could easily deduce, using common-sense, that since abortion was never legalized via the law [traditional legal route], but rather by the courts, then there was obviously more than a little resistance to it... Just ask yourself, why was this particular Supreme Court decision so big, if it was merely a reflection of the prominent views of most Americans at the time? The answer was that it was a decision in the face of popular opinion – it was against it.

[Richard Poor]

How am I changing the subject?

You doing a bivariate comparison on two variables that are not dependent on each other. TIME is the third variable to place into the equation, and if you can't see that clearly maybe you should quit licking the back window and pay attention to what the rest of us are doing.Lol, let's start from the beginning...
Want to reduce the number of abortions dramatically each year? Teach teens about sex, all the options including abstinence, contraceptives, etc. Don't live in the dark ages.To that I responded…


Yeah, that has really helped... how many school/unmarried/teen pregnancies are there now and contrast that number to the ones in the 1940's and 50's before sex-ed was taught To which you wrote:

The entire world has changed since the 40's and 50's. YOUR Kool-aid is on the shortbus, time for school.The point was not whether the world has or has not changed, but rather that pregnancy rates among children were lower at one time BEFORE sex-ed was espoused in school.

Lol, keep drinking the kool-aid; it seems that your main objective is simply to obscure reality to the point where it is no longer relevant. The point was not that time is not a variable or that matters have not changed... rather, the argument was simply that the proposal was not a solution at all. Thus, I made a contrast between teen pregnancy numbers before and after sex-ed.

In the end, sex-ed can be argued effectively to have been the impetus of the very thing it is supposedly intended to solve - irregardless of time.

[Zebulon0351]

Lol, if you do not know what the “truth” is, then why did you expand so much effort running from it with all your words? Why invoke seome abstract epistemological argument in order to hide from the truth if you do not know it?


The truth in regards to abortion is that it is willful murder of a human. According to your version of truth... thanks man.. i've figured that already

The truth about sex-ed in school is that if sex was not propagated via the media and espoused by our school system the number of pregnant kids would decline dramatically. IF... right? The old hypothetical "if" that the right loves to imagine a reality. Guess what rich? IF my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
r
No, rather you WANT to believe that I am referring to the truth of yesterday, just as you WANT to believe that there is no more truth today. Simply because you WANT to believe that something does not exist, does not mean that it does not exist.
So lets create this hypothetical world then rich!!!:happy: Lets plant a bunch of pretty flowers, each of us can have not one but TWO puppies, we can all gather around your feet once an hour to hear you read passages from your (insert inspirational/theological publication here)
So peaceful....
So quiet....
No sex...
No abortions....
No violence....
Peace, Love and Harmony....


Keep telling yourself that infanticide is not murder and just tap your heels together Dorothy… it is far too convenient for liberals to just dismiss truth[s] as something of the past or something that no longer exists – that is the first step in indoctrination, deny the truth and thus any lie can seem real.

Uh... I never said infanticide was not murder. I actually never said abortion was not murder. I never said they WERE either, but I find it funny how you assume I am just trying to squeeze into the mold of a text-book liberal. I fucking hate liberals.


Well, not the last two, but yes… we can create better shows that espouse morality and engender ethics as has once been done and can be done again… the question is not whether it can be done, the question is whether people are willing to do this for their children.

No rich.. are you willing to do it for your children? Is the real question. Since when do you give a shit about how other people raise their own children anyway? I'd be damned if I am going to have someone try to push the moral agenda on me and my family, like it actually belongs the law in the first place.

You go ahead and show your kids TBN on the TV everyday, and shield them from sex altogether.. Don't ever let those bad influences seep into the walls of your house. Protect those kids rich. HOLD THEM TIGHTLY.

Meanwhile, my kids will be learning about the world I will be sending them off into one day.

But as long as your kid's innocence is protected until they go out into the real world... they are going to be OK right? :lmao2:
Who knows, they might be, but now all of a sudden they are going to have to learn all of the things you worked so hard to protect them from. I mean, after all, it was the truth you were teaching them right Rich?

It may be the truth when they are under your care.. but when ANY child, yours, mine, whoever, goes out into the world on their own.. YOUR truth all of a sudden turns into a different reality.





Wow, so much drama... how did you get from people smoking more than they do today and were once not in favor of infanticide/abortion to a "utopian society" or Andrew Jackson [the father of your party by the way].

Two different points being made short-bus.
You bring up at "one point" blah blah blah abortion blah blah murder blah blah... but you neglect to look at other significant movements going on during these points in time. You had slavery, womens suffrage, you had the Witch Hunts in Salem... The civil rights movement, Japanese American Internment, all these things going on during your special "one point" in time when all people thought abortion was murder.
Lets go back to those times Rich. We'll enslave the blacks again, and we will tie people up at the stake that we don't like. But thank God no more babies are dying. :lmao2:

And by the way... I will talk bad about politicians on both sides of the ticket. I think blind allegiance to a party and its members is a sign of not knowing shit.

[Richard Poor]

According to your version of truth... thanks man.. i've figured that alreadyLol, no according to the fact that a human life is taken every time an abortion is performed... if reality is my truth and it offends you... too bad.

IF... right? The old hypothetical "if" that the right loves to imagine a reality. Guess what rich? IF my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. I am sure you think that there is point here, but...there really does not seem to be.


So lets create this hypothetical world then rich!!!:happy: Lets plant a bunch of pretty flowers, each of us can have not one but TWO puppies, we can all gather around your feet once an hour to hear you read passages from your (insert inspirational/theological publication here)
So peaceful....
So quiet....
No sex...
No abortions....
No violence....
Peace, Love and Harmony.... Yawn, so many words and so few points [0].


Uh... I never said infanticide was not murder. I actually never said abortion was not murder. I never said they WERE either, but I find it funny how you assume I am just trying to squeeze into the mold of a text-book liberal. I fucking hate liberals. Actually, since you just jumped in on another conversation with Mr. Blue - I initially thought that you were him that is all. However, it seems despite the fact that you pretend to hate liberals it does not mean that you have nothing in common with them. Perhaps, you do or perhaps you don’t, but at the end of the day, a liberal by any other name will still wreak.




Since when do you give a shit about how other people raise their own children anyway? I'll be honest, I have selfish motives - I worry about the future... I do not have any kids as of yet, but I truly hope to one day and I worry about the kind of things they will be exposed to in school.

I'd be damned if I am going to have someone try to push the moral agenda on me and my family, like it actually belongs the law in the first place. Yet, you have no problem with people pushing YOUR moral agenda on other people's families... what do you think sex-ed is, if not the forceful indoctrination of someone else's morality on a captive audience... children at school.

How about this, no one espouses sex-ed in school and you teach your children about sex if you want.

You go ahead and show your kids TBN on the TV everyday, and shield them from sex altogether.. Don't ever let those bad influences seep into the walls of your house. Protect those kids rich. HOLD THEM TIGHTLY. Why don't you simply sit with your little children and discuss pornography and homosexuality with them instead?


Two different points being made short-bus. Is that supposed to be an insult? I do not care about the size of the bus, or lack thereof, you took to school.

You bring up at "one point" blah blah blah abortion blah blah murder blah blah... but you neglect to look at other significant movements going on during these points in time. You had slavery, womens suffrage, you had the Witch Hunts in Salem... The civil rights movement, Japanese American Internment, all these things going on during your special "one point" in time when all people thought abortion was murder.
Lets go back to those times Rich. We'll enslave the blacks again, and we will tie people up at the stake that we don't like. But thank God no more babies are dying. :lmao2: Wow, what do any of these have to do with anything discussed so far... it seems as if it is yet another attempt to obfuscate the issue by littering it with irrelevant notions and words.

And by the way... I will talk bad about politicians on both sides of the ticket. I think blind allegiance to a party and its members is a sign of not knowing shit.So, you say... but, I have not seen you practice it.

[Zebulon0351]

I don't have a moral agenda. Which by the way never existed until Reagan adopted it in his campaign. Just because I don't support abstinent-only sex-ed in schools and just because I realize that the world today is not and will never be the world of 20, 30, 50, 200 years ago.
I hope I raise my children in a way that prepares them for the world we live in. If I have a son and he turns out to be gay, then he is my gay son. Simply that. Nothing more, nothing less. I will inquire why he feels that way, and after much discussion if he still ends up devoting his life to Jimmy instead of Jane, Jimmy will become just as much a part of my family as any female would.

[Richard Poor]

I don't have a moral agenda. Which by the way never existed until Reagan adopted it in his campaign.Are you kidding me on both counts? Morality [moral issues] has [have] a long history in politics... and you seem to have a clear liberal agenda.

Just because I don't support abstinent-only sex-ed in schools and just because I realize that the world today is not and will never be the world of 20, 30, 50, 200 years ago.
I hope I raise my children in a way that prepares them for the world we live in. If I have a son and he turns out to be gay, then he is my gay son. Simply that. Nothing more, nothing less. I will inquire why he feels that way, and after much discussion if he still ends up devoting his life to Jimmy instead of Jane, Jimmy will become just as much a part of my family as any female would.
Well isn't that nice... but, forcing people's kids to be exposed to things their parents may not want in public schools is public indoctrination.

[Zebulon0351]

Are you kidding me on both counts? Morality [moral issues] has [have] a long history in politics... and you seem to have a clear liberal agenda.

No.... remember? there used to be a separation of church and state...


Well isn't that nice... but, forcing people's kids to be exposed to things their parents may not want in public schools is public indoctrination.[/QUOTE]

And that's fine with me too. But I also realize the fact that simply telling kids to not have sex doesn't work.

[Richard Poor]

No.... remember? there used to be a separation of church and state...Really, where is that exact statement writen? I'll give you a clue, not in the United States Constitution. If anything, it could be argued that this is a principle liberals have derived... but the intention of the Founding Fathers was clear - to protect the church from the state, not visa-versa... if the Founders truly wanted to erase religion from our government, who then was the Creater who endowed the people with inalienable rights?

"What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ."
- George Washington

Congress printed a Bible for America and said:
"The United States in Congress assembled ... recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States ... a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools."
- United States Congress 1782

Congress passed this resolution:
"The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

- United States Congress 1782


"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty - as well as privilege and interest - of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
- John Jay

etc...



And that's fine with me too. But I also realize the fact that simply telling kids to not have sex doesn't work.Wow, how many times have I argued that that alone is not the soltion... the media needs to be addressed also for example. I espoused a holistic approach... not just "telling kids not to have sex."

[Zebulon0351]

Why don't you look at the Bible that Thomas Jefferson "reprinted" for his own personal exploration of the God concept?

If the founding fathers wanted our country to be a Christian nation, what was the point in leaving the church states in Europe in the first place?

[Richard Poor]

Why don't you look at the Bible that Thomas Jefferson "reprinted" for his own personal exploration of the God concept?

If the founding fathers wanted our country to be a Christian nation, what was the point in leaving the church states in Europe in the first place?
There was religious intolerance in Europe... wars were fought over religion. See Catholics vs. Protestants; England vs. France/Ireland/Spain, etc... for example.

The New World was a place where people could be free to express their Christian faith, where they could not do so safely in all of Europe. Protestants were not treated too well in Catholic states and Catholics were not treated too well in Protestant states. However, whether Protestant or Catholic, America is by far a Christian Nation at it roots.

In regards to the Jefferson Bible – he still believed in God and his bible reflected teachings of Jesus that he found to be most influential. I personally feel that Jefferson rebelled against erroneous interpretations of the day, such as Calvinism, with predestination, and its implications at the time. I tend to agree with him on some of his points, but that does not mean that neither, he nor I, are not Christians or that we do not believe in God.

[Zebulon0351]

There was religious intolerance in Europe... wars were fought over religion. See Catholics vs. Protestants; England vs. France/Ireland/Spain, etc... for example.

The New World was a place where people could be free to express their Christian faith, where they could not do so safely in all of Europe. Protestants were not treated too well in Catholic states and Catholics were not treated too well in Protestant states. However, whether Protestant or Catholic, America is by far a Christian Nation at it roots.

In regards to the Jefferson Bible – he still believed in God and his bible reflected teachings of Jesus that he found to be most influential. I personally feel that Jefferson rebelled against erroneous interpretations of the day, such as Calvinism, with predestination, and its implications at the time. I tend to agree with him on some of his points, but that does not mean that neither, he nor I, are not Christians or that we do not believe in God.

Then the US Constitution would establish the United States as a Christian nation. And if you really want to debate the theological mind of Thomas Jefferson I will. First of all, he titled his slaughter of the Bible "The Life and Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth" Jefferson's interpretation of the Gospel had him as a baby in Bethlehem, but left out the Angel spreading the good news. It included some of his teachings, but left out his miracles. It included his burial but not his resurrection.

Jefferson Quotes:



From Notes on Virginia:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."


Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association...

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.

Hmm... So jefferson believed in the separation of Church and State... go figure.

What about freedom of Religion?

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."
Wow... imagine that shit...


Here is quote from a letter written by Jefferson to Thomas Cooper:
[QUOTEChristianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.


:taunt:

Got anything else for me Rich?

[Richard Poor]

Then the US Constitution would establish the United States as a Christian nation. And if you really want to debate the theological mind of Thomas Jefferson I will. First of all, he titled his slaughter of the Bible "The Life and Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth" Jefferson's interpretation of the Gospel had him as a baby in Bethlehem, but left out the Angel spreading the good news. It included some of his teachings, but left out his miracles. It included his burial but not his resurrection. So, let me get this straight; despite the fact that God was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, espoused in Congress from its inception, was the unabashed Creator, despite the fact that the Christian bible was used in schools [which were often in churches] to learn the English language and morality; and more... you do not believe that America was a Christian Nation at its founding, despite all the evidence to the contrary, simply because the Constriction and the Declaration of Independence do not specifically state that the United States is a Christian Nation? Yet, somehow, despite less evidence to the contrary, you believe that America was not a Christian Nation even though there is no statement stating that America is not a Christian Nation… hmm, can anyone else see the hypocrisy mounted on top of the illogic here?



History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.So, this is evidence that Jefferson did not believe in God? I would argue that since many came to America seeking religious freedom, he thought it unwise for the church to run the state – which I agree with. However, you take this to the extreme – that there is no place for the church in the state – which I, and I believe Jefferson, would disagree with… again, he wrote that people were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… without God, there is no Creator, without the Creator, there are no unalienable rights of man… thus no America.



"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I would agree with this… America was founded on Christian principles and beliefs, however that does not mean that there is no room in America for a Jewish person, for example. Nor does it mean that all Christianity should be expunged from America simply because there is a person of Islamic faith in the country.



I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.Umm, did you bother to read the entire letter? Apparently not, since it was clear that Jefferson was assuaging the priest's fears – he feared that his denomination of Christianity would be persecuting by another more popular denomination… whereby, Jefferson assured him that there is a place for him and his flock in America… the purpose was to protect the Church from the state, not the reverse.



Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.Hmm, what could this mean? Well start with the words “common law” which should read, “Common Law” as in British Common Law, as in English laws are not Christian thus Americans, who were Christians, should not fear disobeying British Common Law.



Jefferson believed in God and Jesus, there is no doubt, as to what, if any, denomination he belonged to I cannot answer, but he had faith. In fact he stated as much himself:

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."



:taunt:

Got anything else for me Rich?Lol, what you are not tired of being proven wrong or of being wrong? It has been said that you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink… it appears you favor kool-aid over water.

[Zebulon0351]

Lol, what you are not tired of being proven wrong or of being wrong? It has been said that you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink… it appears you favor kool-aid over water.

So when you lead your horse... "SOCIETY" to the water: "the moral agenda" Do you expect it to drink?
I am not going to go in circles with you on this one like I did last night. Consider it surrender if you want, but I presented you with facts and your rebuttal is nothing but shallow responses on which there is no foundation for them to be placed.

[Richard Poor]

So when you lead your horse... "SOCIETY" to the water: "the moral agenda" Do you expect it to drink?
I am not going to go in circles with you on this one like I did last night. Consider it surrender if you want, but I presented you with facts and your rebuttal is nothing but shallow responses on which there is no foundation for them to be placed.
LMAO, consider it surrender? Of course it is, because you are wrong and the facts have proven it. :hi: You can moan and deny it, but in the end the truth is the truth.

[Binky]

What about the father?

We can hold him accountable for child support after the baby is born but he gets no say until it is born, that is a load of crap.


Unfortunately, this is true. But if the father had kept his peter in his pants and she had kept her genitailia under lock and key, we wouldn't have so many abortions or unwanted babies being born today. But we happen to live in times where morals are vanishing and anything goes. And at every turn the media touts illicit sexual behavior. The youngsters are exposed to this crapola everyday of their lives, right out in the open. Shameful! :banghead:

[Binky]

Seeing that America was founded on Christian beliefs, it sure has strayed far from the original trail hasn't it? With all the evil that reaches out to destroy it and America, it's amazing that christiany is still intact. It has, over the decades and in more recent years, been taking a beating from those that believe otherwise.

[Zebulon0351]

Seeing that America was founded on Christian beliefs, it sure has strayed far from the original trail hasn't it? With all the evil that reaches out to destroy it and America, it's amazing that christiany is still intact. It has, over the decades and in more recent years, been taking a beating from those that believe otherwise.

Welcome to free-market capitalism.

[Richard Poor]

Welcome to free-market capitalism.
Social engineering is not free-market capitalism.

[Zebulon0351]

Social engineering is not fee-market capitalism.

The changes of the entire cultrue brought about by the transfer from industrialization to free market capitalism is what led to the change. If you were so confident that it was "social engineering," this change didn't take place just in the past eight years. Don't think the ways society acts and reacts to different morally-based stimuli is something that can happen overnight or through the years of one administration.

Industrialization: Government asks the country to make sacrifices.. we all faught in WWII if we were on the front lines or if we were assembling planes in the factories. We were asked to come together as a country to help win the fight overseas (coming together was more than putting a yellow ribbon magnet on the back of your car by the way).

Which brings us right into free market capitalism. After 9/11 we were encouraged to come together as well... but it was to spend spend spend. And this short-lived sense of patriotism manifested itself with $1.99 yellow ribbon magnets and sub-prime mortgages. Everyone got so money happy after 9/11.. so people were scrabling to see how they could get a piece of the pie. It is and has been for a long time an every-man-for-himself country.

We don't have to rely on the success of the factory for the success of the town, (i know there are still a few exceptions, and it would be interesting to see how those communities compare to the financial hubs of our country) because most of our mass-produced items are made in foreign countries.

So we are now freed up to.. go to school and set on a venture to make it to the top of the socioeconomic ladder as fast as possible.
Fuck the people below. The very fact the FMC has allowed us to pursue our dreams and say "FUCK YOU" to the those left behind is what has broken our sence of community. FMC seperated the able from the rest. Blame yourself brother.

[Richard Poor]

The changes of the entire cultrue brought about by the transfer from industrialization to free market capitalism is what led to the change. If you were so confident that it was "social engineering," this change didn't take place just in the past eight years. Don't think the ways society acts and reacts to different morally-based stimuli is something that can happen overnight or through the years of one administration.

Industrialization: Government asks the country to make sacrifices.. we all faught in WWII if we were on the front lines or if we were assembling planes in the factories. We were asked to come together as a country to help win the fight overseas (coming together was more than putting a yellow ribbon magnet on the back of your car by the way).

Which brings us right into free market capitalism. After 9/11 we were encouraged to come together as well... but it was to spend spend spend. And this short-lived sense of patriotism manifested itself with $1.99 yellow ribbon magnets and sub-prime mortgages. Everyone got so money happy after 9/11.. so people were scrabling to see how they could get a piece of the pie. It is and has been for a long time an every-man-for-himself country.

We don't have to rely on the success of the factory for the success of the town, (i know there are still a few exceptions, and it would be interesting to see how those communities compare to the financial hubs of our country) because most of our mass-produced items are made in foreign countries.

So we are now freed up to.. go to school and set on a venture to make it to the top of the socioeconomic ladder as fast as possible.
...
I doth think you protest too loudly… in the end, indoctrination of children via public schools and manipulation of people via the media do not lend themselves well to a true free-market system.

Now, are there any similarities with a free-market system – yes. But, that is like saying since monkeys and humans share some similarities, such as fingers, they’re the same. In fact they are not only, not the same, but their differences far outweigh any similarities.

In the end, monkeys and humans are not the same and we do not truly have a free-market system.

Fuck the people below. The very fact the FMC has allowed us to pursue our dreams and say "FUCK YOU" to the those left behind is what has broken our sence of community. FMC seperated the able from the rest. Blame yourself I have two words for you: Affirmative Action... thus, some people are hindered from following their dreams to the fullest extent while others profit, but not because of their labor... ... this is breaking America.

As I stated before... Social engineering is not free-market capitalism.

[Bill Cosby]

Social engineering is not free-market capitalism.

Social engineering......... What are you implying here???

[Bill Cosby]

I doth think you protest too loudly… in the end, indoctrination of children via public schools and manipulation of people via the media do not lend themselves well to a true free-market system.

Now, are there any similarities with a free-market system – yes. But, that is like saying since monkeys and humans share some similarities, such as fingers, they’re the same. In fact they are not only, not the same, but their differences far outweigh any similarities.

In the end, monkeys and humans are not the same and we do not truly have a free-market system.

I have two words for you: Affirmative Action... thus, some people are hindered from following their dreams to the fullest extent while others profit, but not because of their labor... ... this is breaking America.

As I stated before... Social engineering is not free-market capitalism.

I heard that we were a lot like the monkeys...... I also heard the monkeys strongly denied it~~~~ I couldn't blame them neither......
MpwrxIVDCnE
Dave Bartholomew - Monkey Speaks His Mind

The Monkey

I said Yeah
Monkey

now three little monkeys sat on a coconut tree
discussing things has they are said to be
said one to the other, now listen you two
there is a certain rumour that cant be true
that man descended from our noble race
the funny idea is a big disgrace
no monkey ever deserted his wife
nor her baby and ruin her life

I said yeah... Monkey speaks his mind

and another thing you will never see
a monkey build a fence around a coconut tree
and let all the coconuts go to waist
forbidding all other monkeys to come and taste
now if i build a fence around this tree
starvation will cause you to steal from me

I said Yea... the monkey speaks his mind

here is another thing a monkey wont do
go out at night and get on a stew
or use a gun a club or a knife
to take another monkey's life

Yes man descended the worthless bum
but my god brothers from us he did not come

Yeah... The monkey speaks his mind