LJWorld.com weblogs Modest Proposals

On Abortion

Advertisement

Firstly, In response to the commonly prescribed euphemisms representing the (falsely) dichotomous sides of the debate, I propose new dysphemisms: Pro-Choice > Pro-Fetal "Death" Pro-Life > Anti-Reproductive Freedom Secondly, If you don't like abortions, your response should be simple: don't have one. End. Of. Debate. Does your outdated mythology abhor the medical procedure? Don't have one! Keep your absurd theocratic dogma to yourself.

Comments

BigPrune 6 years, 8 months ago

The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines fetus as "The unborn offspring."So, Pro-Choice > Pro-killing of unborn offspring. Pro-Life > Pro-Life (to claim reproductive freedom in your argument is false. The reproduction has already occurred and that is a scientific fact)If you don't like children being abused, your response should be simple? don't abuse your child?If the methods of abortion are so humane and all, why don't they show this most common medical procedure on television? Why the hatred of unborn offspring so much that they should be killed? Have you ever been hurt by an unborn offspring? What about atheists who are against abortion? Why do you discriminate against people who believe in God?

jaywalker 6 years, 8 months ago

So much wrong with this......don't know where to start.....Why prod the beast unnecessarily? Isn't Vick doing time for similar antipathy? And I noted one 'otomous' and two multi-syllabic 'ism's'....... too much absinthe and dope or are you trying to prove to yourself that you're really smarter than your average bear, Yogi? Give us all just a slight break, s'il vous plait.On this issue I believe two things with all my heart..........1.) Pro-choice; because I'm not a woman2.) If men gave birth abortion would be a 'God given right'I understand a pro-life position and cannot argue against it except in the case of rape. Anyone who pontificates one way or the other as if they're on the side of the angels is kidding themselves. And I for one am VERY tired of it all.

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

How about keep your absurb-bigoted-atheist dogma to yourself?Pro-Choice > Pro-Fetal "Death" Yep. that's about the size of it. After you get tired of killing babies, what's next?Maybe a few theocrates just for the memory of Stalin?

Satirical 6 years, 8 months ago

Protecting the most vulnerable in our society...what a ridiculous idea. Since "life" or what is a "human" can be difficult to define, even among those outside the womb, we should create an arbitrary line, devoid of all rationality and scientific evidence, to determine when the unborn get "rights". Because humans are incapable of making intelligent decisions this line should be bright to avoid any possibility of rational thought. How about when the "fetus" is "born"? Sounds good? Until then everything is fair game, including killing the unborn to avoid paying child support or due to malice against the mother. (I mean pregnant female, since "mother" may indicate being the parent of a "child")

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

RS: "I beg to differ with your last post"You know, RS, I made that post in the heat of the moment.I consummated it, as much to see whether it would be removed as anything else, having seen folks make similar remarks with substitutions such as jacka$$. ( I even clicked the "Suggest removal" link next to it. )If I weren't so strapped for time, these days, I might even join the fray-after all, TRUTH is on my side! ( Besides, it pisses logicso off. ),;-DI do love to see you "beg," though.,;-)

geniusmannumber1 6 years, 8 months ago

I'm trying to get to the heart of your argument -- that is, why are you drawing the line where you do? Why from conception? It's clearly not from the science-based reasons you listed, as you were unable to distinguish a fetus from a fish on these grounds. Then why?Why only human? You haven't answered this question. If your answer is going to be something supernatural like "a soul," then I'm not sure why you're posting. You're wasting air (or, in this case, electrons). You're never going to convince anyone of anything if, when you get to difficult points in your argument you say "Because God said so", or "because of magic." It's okay if you believe these things, but you're preaching to the choir in expressing them the way that you do. If your just expressing an opinion for the sake of saying "This is what I believe -- I'm taking a stand!" then I'm not sure why you would do so anonymously. I apologize if you are "getting tired" of discussing this. No one is forcing you to do so. I am genuinely interested in your (or anyone else's) answers to these questions. I usually avoid these threads like the plague, in that you just get polemic nonsense from both sides that lowers my IQ several points. For some reason -- out of boredom, I suppose -- I decided to try and see whether an intelligent discussion might be had on this thread. It's been unavailing thus far.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: that we should legislate what pregnant woman carrying a legal human being can or can't do. That, to me, is a problem.******Damn, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Everyone else in the world is restricted as to what they can and can't do regarding a pregnant woman's child. A doctor can't negligently treat the woman; her husband can't hit her and harm the child and so on. And legislate? Seriously, do you know what the common law is?

zbarf 6 years, 8 months ago

logicsound04 Birth (40 weeks after conception)? You have got to be kidding. So a 30 week old baby that is born early is not a human? Or are you just saying the act of birth makes it a human?I know it is not birth...lets be reasonable. I say the first heart beat or maybe when it can feel pain. But not birth.

KansasVoter 6 years, 8 months ago

ksdivakat -- You say that you've had 2 abortions, but you then say that you don't believe in abortions. Which one is true? Also, since you brought up the subject of money, how much did your abortions cost?SeanS -- It IS that simple! If you don't like abortions, don't have one. A fetus isn't a person, so your argument is the one that's lame. And the ease of baby making has everything to do with the value of life. I could see your point if human females were only fertile for a certain period of time once every few years, but that's not the case. Any woman can get pregnant at any time, so what's the big deal about a few abortions? If a woman can't get pregnant, maybe that's "god" telling her that she shouldn't have kids. Again, if you don't like abortions, don't have one.

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

Jonas,Sarcasm?? I can never tell, and it was such a well-written blog. I opted for the more direct approach this time. Your approach was better.Tra, that's the Brothers Grimm, tis abortion after all, and Tiller is the witch in the woods giving Hansel and Gretal sweets.

SeanS 6 years, 8 months ago

Why is it that we as a society think that we have the right to re-define what life is? I mean really, what's next? If we let every group out there with a fresh new outlook re-define life, we could ultimately end up with an elitist class who views anyone inferior to be subject to death. I mean honestly, why not? If we don't draw the line somewhere, then why couldn't it start to pertain to those less skilled or smart than an elitist group. When you start defining life outside of the biological definition, then we have no definite stopping point. Biology gives the definition of life as this, for any organism: Homeostasis, Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to stimuli, and Reproduction. A fetus has all of these qualities, end the debate here. It is just as much scientific as theocratic, come on now. Now I am in no way saying that Pro-choice advocates intend to take this outside of the fetus, like what I said could happen earlier. But, you must draw the line here before it goes too far.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

LS04, sorry buddy, but you're in over your head. Do you know the elements for negligence? The law has been clearly established regarding anyone else but the mother hurting the child. The only thing missing is an actual duty on the mother's behalf. So in your dietary example, do you even have a clue how a case would proceed?

geniusmannumber1 6 years, 8 months ago

So if there were no law against killing humans, it would be okay with you to kill humans? This isn't a moral issue, but a legal one?

geniusmannumber1 6 years, 8 months ago

SeanS --I appreciate your thoughtfulness on the issue, and if I hadn't completely wasted this morning getting very little work done, I would continue the discussion. Perhaps later, if I decide that today's a wash.

SeanS 6 years, 8 months ago

Haha I knew that someone would try to rip that one out of context. Gladly Genius. That was my mistake, I should have used the term human fetus. I kinda figured that in this debate it was implied but I guess I give some people too much credit. Scientifically the word human means a member of the species Homo sapiens. So no, I am not against killing those things because they are not humans and there is no law against killing those types of animals as there is such law against killing a human. (Of course endangered species are an exception). Informed thank you and I couldn't agree more, but something in me just had to do it. :)

ksdivakat 6 years, 8 months ago

Well why everyone is yelling about when life starts and the ins and outs of that, let me interject this into the conversation, it is my understanding that the republican party wants to repeal R v W, which would take it out of the hands of the feds and bring it back to each individual state. Why are people threatened by that?There is no good argument for "want to go back to back alley abortions?" because that will never happen, even IF abortion was outlawed in every state, it still would not happen. Abortion is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, mostly ran by men. Let me say that again, its mostly overseen and preformed by men.I will not give my name but say that I have had an abortion, not once but twice, neither time by my own choice, but because it was dangerous for me to continue and then I lost a child at 21 weeks, the procedure to get that child out of my body was a "late term abrotion" prefomed by a special doctor they brought into OP regional. Abortions should never be used as a form of birth control, the women who are doing that are whores, plain and simple, not only that but they are incredibly stupid as a simple pill would prevent this.Also, what happens years down the line when she pulls her head out, and meets someone and wants to have a baby and cant because of scar tissue etc...then guess what happnes? She sues the doctor! Guess who pays for that?? you and me in the form of malpractice insurance.And since R v W is a federal law, guess who is profiting off the wombs of women all over the US?So the argument should not be about when does life start? when do WE as a society determine when life begins, but rather it should be a wake up call to everyone, including men who have wives, daughter, mothers, sisters, aunts, who are being proded by the media and the hype to just have an abortion...go on with your life, this has nothing to do with the rights of women, it has nothing to do with the right of life, but rather it has everything to do with the profit of their almighty dollar, so lets think about that, and that should be enough to make you spitting mad! All this of course is my opinion and I just want to say that I am a christian and I do not believe in abortion, but I am more than outraged by the amount of money that is being profitted by fat cats who could care less about women or their rights.

KansasVoter 6 years, 8 months ago

Why are some people so hysterical about abortion? If you don't like abortions, don't have one. It's that simple. There are plenty of babies being born every day, and it's VERY easy to make 'em.

geniusmannumber1 6 years, 8 months ago

"Homeostasis, Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to stimuli, and Reproduction. A fetus has all of these qualities, end the debate here."I would assume, then that you would be against the killing of any animal under any circumstances, as animals also share these characteristics. Fish, for example. If I am incorrect, please distinguish a fetus from a fish in your argument.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

Calliope... to differ-I'll leave the begging to RS-it is really very simple...so simple it defies comprehension.And regarding the "vehement" public discussion, regardless of the words flung, anyone truly embracing the life being defended would, of necessity, have to embrace those opponents who also survived that precarious first trimester... bastards!

SeanS 6 years, 8 months ago

I personally do believe that murdering a human is morally wrong. I don't know when I stated that it was strictly a matter of the law. If you would please read what I said more carefully. "So no, I am not against killing those things because they are not humans and there is no law against killing those types of animals" There are two stipulations in there. 1. They are not humans, and 2. There is no law against killing them. I'm really getting tired of you trying to find flaws in my logic but if you must continue then by all means. Or, you could actually present an argument of your own.

absolutelyridiculous 6 years, 8 months ago

Amazing! This isn't worth a response. Just type the word Abortion and you liberals come out of the woodwork like hungry dogs. Go cash your government check and DO something.

tsicissalcdedeahlatme 6 years, 8 months ago

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this debate, Hiaku. I admit I let passion cloud my grammer and fluency in this blog, but you really have no reason to irrelevantly criticize my writing style. I'm no Joyce, but I get by (just ask my English professors).

Calliope877 6 years, 8 months ago

You know, I don't think this debate will ever be settled because it's too complicated.If it was such a black and white issue, there wouldn't be so much vehement public discussion about it.

tsicissalcdedeahlatme 6 years, 8 months ago

Thank you, kansasvoter. This entire thread has gotten waaay off topic. No one is forcing women to have abortions, they chose to based on their current circumstances. Conversely, every woman has the right NOT the have an abortion if she so chooses. Trying to get a religious-minded person think rationally about the desires of other people is like trying to bathe a cat (neither is recommended).

jonas_opines 6 years, 8 months ago

Oh, good. Well. . . thanks for clearing that up. . . . . . once and for all, I'm sure.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

RS: "tra, that's the Brothers Grimm....",;-)ah, I can see you're well on your way... would you like me to set you up with the support group?

mom_of_three 6 years, 8 months ago

duplenty - your post says it all. very well said

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

metalheadedclassicist:"Firstly...""Secondly..." Lastly... what a jackass.

mom_of_three 6 years, 8 months ago

I don't know if I could ever have an abortion, if I had to make the choice, but I, too, believe I cannot make that choice for someone else. And until murder charges can be filed in every state for death to a fetus when a pregnant woman is killed, then you can't start to outlaw abortion. And in Kansas, if a pregnant woman is killed, only one murder charge is filed. None for the fetus/baby.

tsicissalcdedeahlatme 6 years, 8 months ago

BigPrune, "to claim reproductive freedom in your argument is false. The reproduction has already occurred and that is a scientific fact"Obviously repreduction has already occured if a woman is pregnant; restricting her rights concerning her own body (read: REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS)--unborn fetis including--is, in fact, a REPRODUCTIVE issue. Surely preventing her from aborting an unwanted (unborn, legally non-living) fetis is a issue concerning personal, reproductive freedoms. "If the methods of abortion are so humane and all, why don't they show this most common medical procedure on television?"How many human BIRTHS do you see on television? Don't get me started on censorship. "What about atheists who are against abortion? Why do you discriminate against people who believe in God?"Of course, some atheists are agiainst abortion for their own secular reasons. They're entitled to their opinion (as you are to yours). I "discriminate" against theists because throughout history and in our modern world, they have systemically discriminated against rational non-theists (Spainish Inquistion, anyone?). ----ReadingSports,"How about keep your absurb-bigoted-atheist dogma to yourself?"Why should I keep my rational-"bigoted"-atheist "dogma" to myself? I believe in free speech. If you can make a compelling argument for your personal religious belief, I'm all ears. Christians certainly don't keep their views to themselves: they indoctrinate their children (yes, they do), send missionaries all over the world, and proselytize in the streets. "Maybe a few theocrates just for the memory of Stalin?"Your Stalin reference is irrelevant, but I must say I commend communist nations for their anti-religious traditions. "Thecrates?" Was he Socrates' long-lost, theist brother? ------jaywalker, Thank you for your pro-choice stance, but I don't appreciate being called an Absinthe-fiend just because I'm a stronger writer than you are.

SeanS 6 years, 8 months ago

KansasVoter all I have to say is that I'm glad you're not arguing for my side...that's just lame.

SeanS 6 years, 8 months ago

haha sounds good Genius, always a pleasure having some good intelligent debate.

SeanS 6 years, 8 months ago

Kansas voter your argument is lame because it shows no real knowledge of the issue at hand. The ease of baby making has nothing to do with the value of life. And the issue is obviously not that simple. It's obviously not just a matter of personal preference. Once again, Lame.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

duplenty--we have to make that call regarding how life is defined. Our legal system, in order to function, has to make clear definitions of what is and what is not criminal behavior.

SeanS 6 years, 8 months ago

Genius you seem like a pretty reasonable guy, so I'm puzzled at some of the comments you make. I obviously was able to make the distinction between a human fetus and a fish, it is a human. It doesn't get more distinct than that. I am a Christian, and I don't argue based on the fact that God says "There shall not be abortions." I do personally believe that most original law in this country stems from the Bible, but even as secular as society has become murder is still looked at as one of the worst criminal acts that man can commit. That being said, I think that we can both agree that Biblically speaking or not, murder is a bad thing. Why I draw the line where I do is to me it is the only thing that makes sense. If you are familiar with Roe V. Wade then you should know that the Supreme Court did not argue that a fetus is human or alive, they argue the personhood of a fetus. That is the reason they ruled how they did. They believed that a fetus doesn't have the qualities of personhood. It's funny because they don't even have a definition for the word. The dictionary definition is "The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality." Members who might be excluded are the disabled, long-term brain damaged, those in a coma, fetus' and people in a vegetative state. I could not in my right mind say that the murder of someone with long-term brain damage or in a coma should be okay. That is my reason for drawing the line where I do. I believe that personhood is a bad place to start because many members of society do not display personhood even after birth. And when you condone killing them then like I argued earlier it will snowball into something even more horrible. Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth said "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." That is why I draw the line at conception. Why only human you ask? I'm kind of confused by this one. I would make this argument exclusive to humans only because of my moral values. I am a Christian and if you have no basis for what is right and what is wrong then anything goes. I think that there must be a clear right and wrong established and I support that the murdering of humans is wrong.

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 8 months ago

I wonder how people would respond to the following situation? Let's say that instead of a fetus that is connected to the mother, it is an adult that is connected. Let's say one of the adults can survive on her or his own and the other one cannot. The adult that can survive wants to be disconnected even though the other one will die. Do you support this person's right to be disconnected EVEN if this person gives you no reason to do so. Does that person have a right to exist on their own? It is my contention that "where life begins" is irrelevant to these arguments. As logicsound is alluding to, this is strictly about private bodily rights. I have found most right to life people to be inconsistent when it comes to this point. In order to be consistent, if you are a right to life supporter, you have to argue that a person does not have private bodily rights. In other words, you should be favoring mandatory blood donations, mandatory organ donation upon death, and, likely, a very high rate of taxation (since lives could be saved by giving our money to famine-stricken areas, and presumably if we have no right to bodily privacy when others' lives are at stake, we have even less of a right to our property.) When forced to look at it this way, I have found most right to lifers lose their consistency by claiming that the rights of adulthoods do not apply to the rights of fetuses simply because the fetus cannot fend for themselves. However as the above example illustrates, adults can and will also fall under the exact same condition, that of not being able to fend for themselves.

funkdog1 6 years, 8 months ago

I love how this thread is mostly guys telling other guys what women should or should not do with their bodies. It's just so male of you all.

Calliope877 6 years, 8 months ago

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous)No, I'm afraid it's not simple because if it was there wouldn't be any discussion about it. Public discussion isn't just limited to the LJ World forum. Abortion is a national topic.

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

tsicissalcdedeahlatme, I believe in free speech... "but I must say I commend communist nations for their anti-religious traditions."One of these things does not go with the other. Please educate yourself as to which one. And if you're commending those murderous regimes then I'm not sure I can accurately describe your position without crossing some lines I would rather not cross. Many, many, many theists and others have died at the hands of those butchers. Of course that's just my nasty Christian sensibilities getting in the way of your true faith, isn't it?And the "Spanish Inquistion" was not directed at non-theists. Orginally the target was Muslims, then it was directed at Protestants, and eventually at any "enemy" of the Spanish Crown. However by your own admission "I discriminate against theists" , you seem to have some problem with bigotry.Your posts also seem to be insulting, condescending, arrogant, ignorant, and lacking in reason.

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

tra,I beg to differ with your last post. Your description of the original poster is off-base. I believe the word you're looking for is twit. You know that I hate to disagree with you. Although, I would find the term nit-wit generally acceptable, and a useful compromise. You know that I'm an amiable sort and willing to give ground when it is justified, as are you. :-)

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

Duplenty,"Um, isn't that kind of assurance kind of the problem with all religions?"No, not really, but a lengthy and complex topic, another time perhaps. And a bit off topic, not that we aren't far a-field here."I'm sure a suicide bomber would say the exact same thing:" He might say that...That is until he actually meets the 72 that have never been with a man.72 demons that is.... Hell is a warm place, after all.Catch ya later, gotta go...

KansasVoter 6 years, 8 months ago

SeanS said..."KansasVoter all I have to say is that I'm glad you're not arguing for my side:that's just lame."What's lame about my argument? Everything that I said is true. Marion Lynn said..."And in the midst of the Great American Holocaust, just as easy to kill'em! Fifty million and counting."What's your point? Have any of those abortions directly affected you? If a woman wants to abort her fetus that's her choice and it's none of your business. Like I said earlier, if you don't like abortions, don't have one. It's that simple.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

Calliope: "No, I'm afraid it's not simple because if it was there wouldn't be any discussion about it. Public discussion isn't just limited to the LJ World forum. Abortion is a national topic."Oh, I agree, the "discussion" is not simple-rather convoluted, in my assessment. It is the resolution which is simple-simple to all but the convolutionists.

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

HMMM... What did I miss? :-)By the duplenty don't have plenty of humility. It's hard to argue with someone that is both condescending and conceited.Psalms 14:1Praying that the demons, that you don't believe in, don't get their claws in you, and that you find the faith in Christ that you arrogantly mock.

Haiku_Cuckoo 6 years, 8 months ago

I could barely read the blog entry due to its poor grammar and horrible sentence structure. This kid should be less concerned about the abortion debate and concentrate on finishing school instead.

SeanS 6 years, 8 months ago

Kansasvoter, man you really suck at this. If the ease of reproducing a human life makes that life have no value then why would it be wrong for someone to murder someone else? Answer me that. If ease is what determines value then age should have nothing to do with it... at least that's what your argument implies. And just because a fetus may not possess personhood doesn't make it ok to kill. Are you also saying that we should be able to kill those in coma, or with long term brain damage, or disabled?

KansasVoter 6 years, 8 months ago

SeanS asked..."If the ease of reproducing a human life makes that life have no value then why would it be wrong for someone to murder someone else?"Because a person is a person, and a fetus isn't a person. It's like the difference between a vase and a lump of clay. If you drop a vase it's destroyed, but if you drop a lump of clay you can just pick it up and re-shape it if you want to."Are you also saying that we should be able to kill those in coma, or with long term brain damage, or disabled?"Yes, that's what I'm saying. People pull the plug on those kinds of people every day. Here's how I break it down: If a pregnancy is wanted, it's a baby. If the pregnancy is unwanted, it's a fetus.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

How is that different? Outside of losing a "right" to terminate a pregnancy, what other effect are you anticipating that would have dire consequences?

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

Agnostick, I gotta say that Marion's criticism of you is right on the money. I would add that your constant assertion of being a centrist has worn a bit thin especially since you seem to be toeing the NARAL party line, and our recent discussion of your draconian proposal to remove tax-exempt status from churches, and leave it intact for your liberal political causes. And I would ask if you actually been in an evangelical church lately or even at all. If I remember correctly you're Catholic by background. I go to a pro-life evangelical church, and I assure you that our spiritual lives are heathly. But we also fall short. Though I appreciate your concern. Though I would say that I am actually a Christian as opposed to this clown or any of his followers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk:-)

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

Jonas, What, me, sarcastic? Only very rarely....

jaywalker 6 years, 8 months ago

"Thank you for your pro-choice stance, but I don't appreciate being called an Absinthe-fiend just because I'm a stronger writer than you are"You're a stronger writer than I am? But apparently you lack the comprehension skills that might make that conceited and improvable claim a possibility. Sorry to have offended you so, ironic as that is considering your blog was submitted to illicit a similar reaction from those you obviously hold with disdain and disregard. But I never called you a 'fiend' nor suggested you were such. I asked a sarcastic question and you chose to take it as a smear. That's a 'you' problem, again ironic on its face.And if you believe you're a 'strong writer' because you strung three words in one sentence that even the most pompous of intellectuals wouldn't dare attempt, well, bully for you. But it don't make it so, Yogi."If you don't like abortions, your response should be simple: don't have one. End. Of. Debate. "And sorry to poke another hole into your patronizing yet ever so....flawed?... 'intellectuality', but do you really believe your above declaration ends the debate for those who fight against abortion? That's sorta like telling someone who's against the torture and mutilation of cats (apparently a topical subject around town these days) not to torture or mutilate their own cat. Brilliant, Yogi. Ya really cracked the case with that one!

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

LS04-what you're missing is that outside of abortion, a fetus already is considered a person. Common law has already been created regarding everyone else's "own behavior to account for the rights of the fetus."" a law would need to be created that prevented the mother from eating certain things tha might prove harmful to the fetus."This law already exists except that the mother's duty is negated because of her ability to have an abortion.For example, a husband could be criminally and civilly liable if he put something in his wife's food to harm the fetus. This law already exists, one only has to substitute the mother in place of the husband.A mother that feeds her 5 year old child something harmful can be criminally and civilly liable-this law already exists. The law isn't so inflexible and illogical that you could bring up a defense that feeding a five year old and feeding your fetus aren't technically the same thing so previous law doesn't apply.If someone commits violence against a pregnant women, and the fetus is harmed, that person can be criminally and civilly liable for the injury-this law already exists, one has only to substitute the mother in place of the attacker.You seem to be getting at a point that somehow new scenarios will cause problems. All these laws already exist, whether by statute or common law. One need only substitute the pregnant mother for the defendant in similar offenses, the only difference is that right now, she doesn't have a duty to care for the fetus because that would "infringe" on her "right" to an abortion.

jonas_opines 6 years, 8 months ago

Huh, I thought that we had resolved this argument. Wasn't that what the blog was about?

revshackleford 6 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

"Woman's choice, end of story!"skinny, that story never ends... until the fat lady sings.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

"... it's only words, and words are all I have, to steal your time away...."( hmm... I think the Brothers Gibb may have said that... before they did the puberty regression, and their voices changed )

jonas_opines 6 years, 8 months ago

readingsports: What, me, sarcastic? Perish the thought.

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

Marion,If this is you, then I am sorry. What's really sad is that there are many women that have abortions out of desperation, but come to regret it later.The clinics are never honest with what they are about to experience, or the grief that will live in them from then on.That poster that said that you can always make more is truely lacking in compassion or humanity. Maybe someday he will find both.

KansasPerson 6 years, 8 months ago

KansasVoter (Anonymous) says:"It's like the difference between a vase and a lump of clay. If you drop a vase it's destroyed, but if you drop a lump of clay you can just pick it up and re-shape it if you want to."KV, I appreciate the motive behind the wishful thinking that an aborted baby can just "come back" as another baby next time. This point of view was (not surprisingly) supported in one of the editions of "Our Bodies, Ourselves." But it doesn't make scientific sense. Each baby/fetus/person (pick one!) has its own specific DNA and therefore a unique identity. If you abort one, that particular one will never occur again, scientifically speaking.As to your previous comments about "if you don't like abortions, don't have one" -- I'm certainly glad that my ancestors did not have that line of reasoning about earlier social issues in the U.S. "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave!" Instead of that sort of logic, they realized a wrong when they saw it, whether it was slavery or the fact that it was illegal for women to vote, and they fought to change it.I realize the difference between those issues and this one -- the issue of abortion is something that affects a woman's BODY and is therefore a more personal issue. I realize that most women do not have abortions just out of vanity or convenience, but because they see it as the least horrible of a range of horrible outcomes. But all this is akin to saying that it's a complex issue -- not something that a blogger can solve with a statement like 'End of debate!' As another poster said, if you think that, then just google the word "abortion" and see if your point of view has in fact "ended" anything!

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

Well since you say so it must be true.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

duplenty (Anonymous) says: BTW - I have experiences with unborn children, and I'm anti-abortion:which is why I've never been in a situation in which abortion was ever discussed or a possibility. But I wouldn't ever be so arrogant as to make that choice for anyone else.*******You are making a decision for someone else--the unborn child. You decide that their life doesn't matter, and that's about as arrogant as you can be.

zbarf 6 years, 8 months ago

Question to any Pro Choice people on this blog... Have you ever had a one on one interaction with an un-born child? I have and mom was sound asleep while I'd tap on her belly and he (the baby) would kick back. I would tickle his feet and he would flip around and react just like a new infant. Not one person here would call killing a new born choice but the same child three weeks earlier could have his brains sucked out and you see no problem with this...???

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

,;-DRS: "Wait a minute, you picked the fight with me, and now you're all mad?"I don't pick fights; I just play, in the worst sort of way.Not mad. Well, not angry. Mad maybe. RS: "Okay, you have asserted your Christianity..." I really have diverged from the popular notion of "Christianity" ( especially that modern, organized, American version ) -so much so that I deplore the term. Jesus was a major dude, in my assessment. Paul was a lesser child of God.I love the Bible. It's another book on my shelf. RS: "1.I know you make off-the-wall comments, but some of the things you say about other posters isn't very Christian."( See above. )Make no mistake. I love my fellows more that the average Christian does.( This I know, for the Bible tells me so. ) RS: "2.Accusing other Christians of mocking Christ is well: not cricket either."I do not see American lifestyles as being consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Christian? Mother Teresa, perhaps. And those self-appointed Vatican jackasses who sat in judgment of her "sainthood"... not even worthy of touching the hem of her garment.I remember her passing. She and Diana departed in the same week.Diana got a front page, full-color spread;Teresa was a footnote buried several pages deep. RS: "3.Jesus Christ is God and Creator. I ain't him, you ain't him. Why would you compare me to him?"eh?If he were among us, I would expect him to assert that he ain't him.( You know, that whole "son of man" thang... hey, aren't we all? ) RS: "4.I hope you're reading more then just the parts in red, for it is all the inerrant word of God."How can you be sure that everything I write isn't the word of God? RS: "5."And regarding that distortion attributable to Paul," To what are you referring? Er, a I believe that Paul is present with God, as I will be someday, and you will too."I've said it before. Jesus appears to have been an enlightened soul with dramatic prescriptions for living; Paul appeared on the scene sometime later, proclaiming "Here's the loophole!" RS: "Tra, as I have said before, I think you add something to these boards."Sometimes I even click the "Suggest removal" link. RS: "If I offended you or called into question the faith that you've never publicly expressed then I ask forgiveness for my sin. Or maybe you just like seeing me beg?"No offense taken. Ruth Gordon said it best in Harold and Maude...people... "they're my species."Jesus was like Ruth, in that respect.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

Like your unsupported conclusions can be counted as a real response.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

Wow, that is about as non-specific as you can get. How about trying a real answer? Or are you yellow?

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

RS: "Praying that the demons, that you don't believe in, don't get their claws in you, and that you find the faith in Christ that you arrogantly mock."Tho' I realize I will suffer yet ANOTHER significant loss of affection, still it must be said... in my ( accusedly-not-so- ) humble assessment, nothing would seem to "mock" the teachings of Jesus more than that expression which is modern, organized, American "Christianity." logicso: "Think about all the rights that you and I have. Then think about how a great number of those rights don't apply to a fetus and why they don't.That is the difference."Consider the single inalienable right which transcends ALL others.That is the sum.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

LS04, and? Rights like freedom of speech are negative rights, which means that the government cannot interfere, but it doesn't mean they have to provide you with a microphone and an audience. So what are you thinking the problem would be? That sounds ridiculous. Has the government been denying them freedom of speech up until now? I haven't noticed; if you have, please give me an example.Since you seem to be incapable of coming up with anything relevant, I'll help you out. 14th amendment due process rights do involve some affirmative rights. For example, if the government gives out free cookies to everyone who posts on the LJWorld.com but you, then you can sue the government saying "where's my cookies?" Have fun!

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

logicso: ".... My conclusions are my opinions........ Please try to afford me the same courtesy."Perhaps proponents of abortion-even the "reluctant but supportive" ones-should be afforded the same courtesy shown those never given an opportunity to form an opinion.

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

Duplenty,"if you find my views arrogant, than I'm sorry to have offended you." Your views don't offend me, in fact they say more about you than about me. But if you're going to persist in calling me "stupid", "insane", or lacking in intellect, then I'm going to persist in either finding new ways to describe your arrogance or ignore you altogether. The latter of which I'm to start now. Trangelo,Wait a minute, you picked the fight with me, and now you're all mad? I plead in-tra-pment! :-0Okay, you have asserted your Christianity:1.I know you make off-the-wall comments, but some of the things you say about other posters isn't very Christian. 2.Accusing other Christians of mocking Christ is well: not cricket either.3.Jesus Christ is God and Creator. I ain't him, you ain't him. Why would you compare me to him?4.I hope you're reading more then just the parts in red, for it is all the inerrant word of God. 5."And regarding that distortion attributable to Paul," To what are you referring? Er, a I believe that Paul is present with God, as I will be someday, and you will too. Tra, as I have said before, I think you add something to these boards. If I offended you or called into question the faith that you've never publicly expressed then I ask forgiveness for my sin. Or maybe you just like seeing me beg?

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

logicso: "... if you ask me. My point is that you can't be deserving of rights until you are born."Please let us know, then, when you're postpartum, so that we might "confer" a few rights... lefts... uppercuts....

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

Tra,Judging by the hatred of those that know absolutely nothing of Christ, including yourself Tra. I would say that American Christianity is alive and well and even thriving. John 15:18-25True devotion to the King never mocks him. And Tra, I still like you. No offense.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

mee: "Consider the single inalienable right which transcends ALL others...."thee: "Yes, and to provide that right to someone before they exist, in my opinion, makes no sense." On Making Sense: How is it, logicso, that the "...one" to whom you refer does not "exist?"Step right up, folks... witness the INCREDIBLE non-existent referent...! And, logicso, that right is conferred by existence itself ( i.e., inherent )-not "provided" by thee or mee. ( oh, and BTW... what sort of being was that "nonexistent" entity to which you disalluded, if not a human being? )

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

RS: "Judging by the hatred of those that know absolutely nothing of Christ, including yourself Tra."I see you've been reading the sports section, again.As for me, I can read the red writing on the page.RS, I knew Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth was a friend of mine.RS, you're no Jesus of Nazareth."And regarding that distortion attributable to Paul, recently I was playing the KJV/RLE backward at a slow speed, and I could make out, very distinctly... "Saul is dead."

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

logicso: "I think that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body...."Absolutely. And once she has made her choice, with potential consequences of even a probabilistic nature, then let her honor that "right to choose" with fittingly responsible action, for if she is not willing to assume responsibility for her choices, then is she not unworthy of a right to choose? logicso: "... but there is nothing unreasonable about expecting that choice to be made in the first 3 months of pregnancy...."Geez, logicso, what donkey did you pull that figure out of?Why not 9-1/2 weeks? Why not a third of a year? Why not a Venusian fortnight? ( hmm... now, that would cover things ) logicso: "... when there is no chance of a formed baby being prematurely born, and when it is still HER body."While there is "no chance of a formed baby being... born," it is THEIR body.

zbarf 6 years, 8 months ago

Logicalsound,I don't understand your arguement about laws regarding the mom to eat a certain way. There are no laws on what to feed you 5 year old so why (if a fetus is defigned a human) would it be any different.

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

HMMM...Okay, this post was more ambigious and more Tra than the last.Let's kick you off your fence...Straight question: are you a sinner and is Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior, or not?

lawrencemomof2 6 years, 8 months ago

Thanks for your comments zbarf! I appreciate the reminder of the fact that unborn babies are unique individuals. As any mother can tell you, when you go to the doctor throughout pregnancy, you get to listen to the baby's heartbeat and it's always considerably faster than the mother's - clearly a separate person. My daughter (now almost eight) seemed to express political opinions by kicking and punching whenever Al Gore spoke during the presidential debates (we're still not sure if she loved him or hated him, but she definitely reacted to his voice differently than to anyone else's). I had a similar experience to yours during a sonogram - my baby was clearly reaching up in response to pressure.My daughter was born 6 weeks early - perfectly formed, with a wonderful personality. It breaks my heart that it would have been legal to kill her. This is NOT just an issue of a woman's control over her own body. Whether the pregnant woman likes it or not, there is another person inside her, a separate individual.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 8 months ago

duplenty: "But I wouldn't ever be so arrogant as to make that choice for anyone else."... that is, except for a wombling.

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

"I've said it before. Jesus appears to have been an enlightened soul with dramatic prescriptions for living;"Ohh, okay, I guess not. Hope you find clarity. Dude.

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

Tra,I really don't want to offend you, but as you have said you don't always play fair. I on the other hand, I'm playing for keeps.Tra, you can call yourself anything you want, but to be a Christian is to be Christ's and Christ's alone. That you are not. Jesus wasn't an "enlightened soul" and didn't claim to be, he claimed to be God. All four Gospels contain these claims. So those "American Christians" that you accuse of mocking Christ are the real deal for there isn't a difference between an American Christian and a non-American Christian. C.S. Lewis said it best:"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of thing Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God."Your choice, but as for me and my house, I will serve the Lord. With Respect,RS

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

And just to correct the record here: I said that the 72 virgins awaiting Islamic Suicide bombers would be demons. Which BTW is justifiable within context of Christian doctrine. Even though I was half joking. I believe that is my only use of the word as concerns you. Though I think that you may actually have more personal experience with them than I myself do, but may not realize it. :-)

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

"But if you're going to persist in calling me "stupid", "insane", or lacking in intellect, then I'm going to persist in either finding new ways to describe your arrogance or ignore you altogether. The latter of which I'm to start now."I didn't call you stupid or insane - I said that I believe that believing in "demons" and a literal "hell" are stupid and insane."Now I believe you are dishonest both personally and intellectually. If you're going to call me names than at least have enough integrity not to sit there and lie and split hairs about your behavior.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

I'm not sure I understand it either, krystalk, but after years of medical training and grueling devotion to practice, having sworn an oath never to do harm to anyone, some rare individuals evidently are able to ascend to a state of... well... this may help...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqeC3B...

beatrice 6 years, 7 months ago

tra, if there is no compromise, then nothing will change. It will just be an all or nothing stand and all other issues will take a back seat. I would hope that we don't really insist on sticking to this way of thinking.

storm 6 years, 7 months ago

Had my mother chosen to abort me, I wouldn't have cared. And as a former fetus, I still don't care. Besides, if folks are following the bible, it does allow abortion, I think girls could be terminated later than boys - the ancients valued boys, obviously. Go figure how they even determined gender.

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

Besides, if folks are following the bible, it does allow abortion...Oh really, Chapter and Verse?Storm is right, a Storm of giggling! :-)

beatrice 6 years, 7 months ago

Marion Lynn has had five posts bounced from this story alone and god knows how many overall, and he is one of LJWorld's "bloggers." This on-line site allows him space to write stories under their banner.LJWorld, how many chances do you give someone before you flush already? Abortion -- horrible thing, don't have one if you don't want one, and it shouldn't be allowed without real cause after the first tri-mester. That is my view on the subject. Seems like a reasonable compromise (next, we can tackle the gun issue). However, I don't anticipate my personal views to be adopted for all others.

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

If you find that dishonest (intellectually or otherwise), I'm sorry. But I didn't call you stupid or insane, but I did say that I believe to believe as you apparently do is both. And while I said that I support your right to your beliefs, apparently you don't extend that same courtesy to me.My point is that you can disagree without being condescend and insulting. As for supporting my right to believe as I choose, your actions and attitude prove the lie in your heart. Oh, and because I am in Christ I don't have to worry demons.

jonas_opines 6 years, 7 months ago

Krystalk: "Heartbeat is a heartbeat. end of story."Hmmm. . . sounds sort of familiar.Orig. Blogger: "If you don't like abortions, your response should be simple: don't have one. End. Of. Debate."And yet, it continues to, well, continue. It's almost (I know, big stretch here) but it's almost as if your various individual perspectives are not absolute truth, and that other people will have other less-simplistic viewpoints. I know! Crazy, huh?

Tanya Spacek 6 years, 7 months ago

We have enough unwanted children in America. Who's going to take care of all of them? It makes sense that every child should be a wanted child. Anti-choice people are so rabid when it comes to saving all these unborn babies, but then you hear crickets once they're born. Or you hear:"I want all these unwanted babies to be born, but they'd better not be raised with MY tax dollars."The day I see anti-choice protesters lining up to adopt unwanted kids, that's the day I'll start taking them seriously.

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

"Be careful who you end up serving, there. Sayin' ain't servin'."Careful Tra, you know nothing about me, and accusing me of not practicing or acting out my faith based on my on-line persona could be construed as presumptuous. A faith which, by your own admission, you do not share. In short you, like duplenty, do not have the tools needed to evaluate the faith of someone, when you don't share that faith. (Although, you are not an arrogant liar.) Though it is acceptable to discuss the causes and results of a particular type of faith. How are we to trust the accounts of those less enlightened individuals? Which is my point and Lewis's also, if you can't trust John1:1-5, John14:6, John 3:16, Matt 16:15-17, Matt 28:18, Matt 26:63-64, Mark 1:1-8, then isn't Matt 5 also in question? I've only listed a limited selection of divinity verses, but in fact, really there is only one section of the Bible that Jesus himself directly asserts his divinity, that is Matthew 1 to John 21. Try reading the gospels again. Oh, and the "oldest" Gospel is John so look to it to see what the 'earliest' Christian thinking about Jesus is.To dismiss some of the writings, to cherry pick meanings where none is present, is to set yourself up as the final arbiter, even above God, and is to deny Christ rather than follow. Tra, the less enlighten individuals, that you dismiss, all followed Christ into death. They all maintained to the death that Jesus was God. For instance, Paul was kitty chow, and Peter was crucified upside down. If your life depended on it, isn't that something you would be sure about? Additionally, when Jesus was on trial he told the court that he was the Son of God. That statement led directly to his execution. Ah, "You know, RS, Jesus wasn't a "Christian" either." It is a logical impossibility for Jesus to be Christian since Christian means follower of Christ. I'm not sure it's really accurate to describe Jesus as Jewish either, but that on the other hand is a reasonable definition. Oh, and by the way, your understanding of Paul's writings is inadequate as well. At no time, does Paul offer up a loophole. Just the statement that Grace is by Faith, and in works there is no boasting, as you seem to be doing here:Make no mistake. I love my fellows more that the average Christian does. ( This I know, for the Bible tells me so. ) And Chapter and Verse on that is...You have bought into the lie that you can be saved on your own merit. I will repeat what the beatitudes say, on your own merit, you are sinner, and on your own merit you are damned. As am I.Sorry, Tra, I do see that you said "nice, not fair". Actually, not playing fair really applies to me. :-)

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

storm: "Had my mother chosen to abort me, I wouldn't have cared. And as a former fetus, I still don't care."I matters not whether you ( post that you ) care.Had you been aborted, there would be no fingers at the keyboard.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

RS: "I really don't want to offend you, but as you have said you don't always play fair. I on the other hand, I'm playing for keeps."What I said was... I just play, in the worst sort of way.... which is not to say that I don't play fair.Often, "fairness" can be achieved with nothing more than a subtle reorientation on the part of the perceiver. RS: "Tra, you can call yourself anything you want, but to be a Christian is to be Christ's and Christ's alone. That you are not. "I knew Christ. Christ was a friend of mine. You, tra, are no Christ" ... eh?You know, RS, Jesus wasn't a "Christian" either. RS: "Jesus wasn't an "enlightened soul" and didn't claim to be, he claimed to be God. All four Gospels contain these claims."Rumor has it that Jesus didn't "claim" anything, having never committed a word to paper ( or to whitespace ) . How are we to trust the accounts of less enlightened individuals. Clearly, the theme of the day was one of general cluelessness about "God" and about spirituality. RS: "So those "American Christians" that you accuse of mocking Christ are the real deal for there isn't a difference between an American Christian and a non-American Christian."[ Rumor, above, noted... ] Jesus said, "Sell everything and follow me" ... "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."Americans are the wealthiest people on Earth. How many of them do you think can get behind the initial notion presented above? ( Compare the life of Mother Teresa, who served the poorest of the Earth, and that in striking contrast to the wealth of Vatican City. )Like most so-called "Christians" you've bought S/Paul's loophole. After all, it lets you off the hook; it relieves you of the sort of responsibility to self, to others, and to "God" to which Jesus alluded. It allows you to wrap yourself in a comfort zone which actually denies spiritual growth.S/Paul:"...Now close your eyes,and click your heels together three times,and say, "There's no place like Heaven...There's no place like Heaven...."

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

...RS: "C.S. Lewis said it best...."You know, when I was younger, I read something by C.S. Lewis with which I was impressed ( some discourse on Christianity... I can't remember ) but I'm not sure he said it best. I don't accept the limited-limiting-dichotomy presented above... but, if I get the gist of it... if Jesus wasn't GOD, then he certainly must have been a madman. In that regard, I think David may have said it best..."... I'd rather stay here, with all the madmenThan perish with the sadmen roaming freeAnd I'd rather play here, with all the madmenFor I'm quite content they're all as sane as me( Where can the horizon lieWhen a nation hidesIts organic mindsIn a cellar...dark and grimThey must be very dim ) ...." RS: "Your choice, but as for me and my house, I will serve the Lord."Be careful who you end up serving, there. Sayin' ain't servin'.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

Sometimes the least simplistic viewpoints can be expressedwith the simplest of words.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

Oh, bea, I don't don't think anything should take a back seat to this issue( and I've said as much, elsewhere ) . And I'm sure there are folks iteratively pursuing a non-abortion objective. More power to them. I'd like to think that perspectives/positions such as mine are relevant to the process, however. Simply put, I don't think we have a right to render the existential judgment, whether abortion, the death penalty, whatever.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

Oh, why not, RS... hell, it's Sunday morning... RS: "Careful Tra, you... could be construed as presumptuous."Granted, I'm nothing, if not presumptuous. Your point? RS: "A faith which, by your own admission, you do not share. In short you, like duplenty, do not have the tools needed to evaluate the faith of someone, when you don't share that faith."My faith is greater than yours, insofar as it neither is tied to dogma nor requires "the incantation" for salvation ( for lack of another term ) .And, hey RS, wanna see a true expression of Christian faith...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popemobile RS: "(Although, you are not an arrogant liar.)I will take that as a concession, then, that I am an arrogant truth teller( ... NOT to be confused with that arrogant distorter of TRUTH, -teller ) . RS: "How are we to trust the accounts of those less enlightened individuals? Which is my point and Lewis's also, if you can't trust John1:1-5, John14:6, John 3:16, Matt 16:15-17, Matt 28:18, Matt 26:63-64, Mark 1:1-8, then isn't Matt 5 also in question?"Whoa, RS, far too many names and numbers to call up in search of the truth. I'm sticking to my direct, "hotline." RS: "I've only listed a limited selection of divinity verses, but in fact, really there is only one section of the Bible that Jesus himself directly asserts his divinity, that is Matthew 1 to John 21."So... it was Matthew's/John's assertion...? RS: "To dismiss some of the writings, to cherry pick meanings where none is present, is to set yourself up as the final arbiter, even above God, and is to deny Christ rather than follow."Even if one shakes ALL the cherries from that tree, there are untold orchards from which to derive "meaning." ( And, regarding that "arbitration" thang, what interpreter is exempt? ) RS: "... the less enlighten individuals, that you dismiss, all followed Christ into death."Rumor has it that lemmings actually run in hoards into the sea... but that may just be a myth... like other mythical tales. RS: "... your understanding of Paul's writings is inadequate as well...."Well, granted, it has been a long time, so I am working on a weak trace here... but, wasn't it Paul who relegated women, speechless, to the "back of the church?" Clearly God's conduit on Earth, eh? RS: "You have bought into the lie that you can be saved on your own merit. I will repeat what the beatitudes say, on your own merit, you are sinner, and on your own merit you are damned. As am I." Dang, I hate it when I'm damned... and by the very folks requiring "the incantation"-which, of course, would require a "recantation" of the sense that God gave a... "sinner"... like me. RS: "Sorry, Tra, I do see that you said "nice, not fair". Actually, not playing fair really applies to me. :-)No hard feelings, RS... after all, it IS the "Christian" condition, is it not? Oh,man.

krystalk 6 years, 7 months ago

If I cant go out and kill a person why should there be clinics to go to to kill... yes a person. A baby an innocent little child. A heartbeat is a heartbeat. end of story. Adoption before abortion here.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

jonas: "No one knows"-----------Ah, the moments of clarity, from where do they come?RS, I was just turning some old lyrics over in my mind ( why? ) ,and I had a moment. When you can see yourself in the lyrics, below,then you ( may ) have arrived..."...I never knew a manCould tell so many liesHe had a different storyFor every set of eyesHow can he rememberWho he's talking to?Cause I know it ain't me,And hope it isn't you." - Neil ----------- ( "You're all just pissin' in the windYou don't know it, but you are.And there ain't nothin' like a friendWho can tell you you're just pissin'In the wind." )

beatrice 6 years, 7 months ago

National security, world economy, global warming, world hunger, to name just a few issues that should take a front seat to the issue of eliminating women's choices for their own reproductive options. Are you then against condoms? They potentially stop a pregnancy too. Do you think women who are raped should be given access to a D&C since it might end a forced pregnancy? Sorry, but I don't agree with you on this one tra, although I again do think there is room for compromise.

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

Oh, and because I am in Christ I don't have to worry about demons.Though I do fall short now and again.

jonas_opines 6 years, 7 months ago

Yes, that's true. "No one knows" springs immediately to mind.

jonas_opines 6 years, 7 months ago

"Had you been aborted, there would be no fingers at the keyboard."Sure there would. They would just belong to someone else.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

bea: "Seems like a reasonable compromise...."Ah... "reasonable" compromise.You-and-I know that, under the sun, everything will be done,but can we, in good conscience,relegate the existential judgmentto the arena of "compromise?"Not I. bea: "However, I don't anticipate my personal views [being] adopted [by] others."Nor I, bea. Nor I.

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

Tra,Popemobile as I said many, many times: I am not Catholic. Though in his defense that particular conveyance was adopted after the assignation attempt on the previous Pope. This one's life is in danger from the same source. Trivia question: of what faith was the person that tried to kill the last pope?Protestants don't have a single human figurehead like Catholics do, and salvation comes from Christ and not from the Pope. "I'm sticking to my direct, "hotline." How can you be sure that everything I write isn't the word of God? And, regarding that "arbitration" thang, what interpreter is exempt?"Okay, I know that I've linked several comments together, but they seem be related, and as I've said I don't play fair. How do you know that you've reached the right number? As duplenty suggested we must always be wary of demons and demonic voices. (Oh, and I should have said that you are not a condescending, arrogant, lying moron who is lacking in reason and integrity). Here is my methodology:No revelation is inconsistent with the original, meaning that I always check my "hotline" with the correct one, and for greater understanding I also consult those with better understanding than I. To-wit, or twit, (no I'm not talking about duplenty again.) so I know that nothing you write is from God because you are not in Christ and are not consistent with the original material. So it is the revealed Word of God that is my arbitrator. I check with with others that I trust and respect for errors in interpretation. Even if one shakes ALL the cherries from that tree, there are untold orchards from which to derive "meaning." So I look at the original cherries, and don't mint my own.Since you like lyrics: "Worlds Apart" -- Jars of ClayTo turn away and not becomeAnother nail to pierce the skin of one who lovesMore deeply than the oceansMore abundant than the tearsOf a world embracing every heartacheCan I be the one to sacrificeOr grip the spear and watch the blood and water flow:.I look beyond the empty crossForgetting what my life has costAnd wipe away the crimson stainsAnd dull the nails that still remain"Be careful who you end up serving, there. Sayin' ain't servin'."That's right Tra: Matt 10:32-33 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.Tra, are you are Christian? Really you are a tra-ian since your faith is entirely of your own invention.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

bea: "Are you then against condoms? They potentially stop a pregnancy too...."Not against condoms or other preventive measures. ( In fact, have been a beneficiary of such in relationship spanning a quarter of a century. ) My concern is regarding a life conceived; once conceived, that existence changes everything. bea: "Do you think women who are raped should be given access to a D&C since it might end a forced pregnancy?That's a tough one, without doubt. But, to begin with, let me note that I do not believe abortion exists in this culture to address the consequences of rape. Almost exclusively, abortion exists to preserve lifestyles, plain and simple.What to do, in the event of rape, culminating in pregnancy? Two "victims," so to speak. A child, ill-conceived. The child, NOT the father, yet borne of the rape victim's very fabric. Whether my daughter, my wife, my mother, I could not be supportive of abortion. It is life. Human life. Of value. Fundamentally. bea: "Sorry, but I don't agree with you on this one tra, although I again do think there is room for compromise.I get that, bea. And while I won't "agree to diasagree" ( whatever that means ) , if my support of a life conceived departs from your support of a victim of a horrific event, well, there are greater divides in this life. You're wrong, of course...,;-D... but, on the other hand, you're right ( IMNSHO ) about so many things in these forums, that it won't come between us. Wouldn't it be grand, if such a ( perceived ) divide between unwitting mother and unanticipated child could so easily be bridged.

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

Tra, this comment wasn't directed at you: "My point is that you can disagree without being condescend and insulting. As for supporting my right to believe as I choose, your actions and attitude prove the lie in your heart."I haven't had a problem with the way you've expressed yourself, except for the occasional cheap shot which are your stock and trade.Duplenty, as far as courtesy you have extended none to me. But instead have mocked me and Christians everywhere as stupid and insane, and I reserve the right to stick my finger in your face and denounce your arrogant and condescending attitute for what it is.

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

Tra,Actually, you are probably a smorgasbord-ian. Another lyric for you, slightly modified:One, two, three, four, fiveEverybody in the car, so come onLet's ride to the book-store around the cornerThe boys say they want some spirtuality But I really don't wannaFast like I had last weekI must stay deepBecause talk is cheapI like Buddhism, shintoism , Judaism, and ChristianityAnd as I continue you knowThey are getting sweeterSo what can I do I really beg and you my LordTo me flirting it's just like sport, anything flyIt's all good let me dump itPlease set in the trumpetChorus:A little bit of Buddha in my lifeA little bit of Shinto by my sideA little bit of Oprah is all I needA little bit of Jesus is what I seeA little bit of Isis in the sunA little bit of Gaia all night longA little bit of Tarot here I amA little bit of whatever makes me your man:-)

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

RS: "... and as I've said I don't play fair."( "Christian" ) RS: "How do you know that you've reached the right number?"Exactly. RS: "I always check my "hotline" with the correct one, and for greater understanding I also consult those with better understanding than I."Ah, the "correct" one. You know, that directory may simply be out-of-date, like that "Old" directory before it. And, RS, in this life, no one has better understanding than oneself. There are vantage points. I have mine, you have yours. The best we can do is to try to share the view from our unique vantage points, but efforts to follow just lead us... away. RS: "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven."Wow. Could the savior really be so petty? Even I would not "deny" my detractors. RS: "Tra, are you are Christian? Really you are a tra-ian since your faith is entirely of your own invention."I know a lot of people claim to be. I have never met a true "Christian"-tho' I have heard rumors of such self-sacrificing individuals. And my faith is not entirely my own invention. Left to my own means, I would be impoverished, indeed. There are many points of light in this universe of ours. The Bible is but one of them; unfortunately it has been hidden beneath a bushel by organized religion. ( And, in many respects, it is its own occluding bushel. ) RS: "My point is that you can disagree without being condescend and insulting. As for supporting my right to believe as I choose, your actions and attitude prove the lie in your heart."If I have expressed... contempt... it is for constructs, not persons. When your "belief" ceases to evolve, you are dead. It is not I who is the executioner.And the only thing in my heart... is a song.

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

I have made no statements that were arrogant! More of your lies and false accusations. But you have mocked and belittled me from the beginning. And your claim you want a rational discussion. I say you are not worth my time.

matahari 6 years, 7 months ago

oh! lets just go all the way back and make it illegal for men to jack off (wow how many possibles there?) Or each time a non pregnant woman ovulates without pregnancy she is not letting a new person be born to the world...(one more kid every 9 months! yippee!)ridiulus? yes. but where do "we" draw the line? "we" don't "he" or "she" does!Individual choice is where the line is 'drawn'

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

[ A post inspired by Agnostick, content composed and rendered by a Jew, devoted to RS ]"When I die and they lay me to restGonna go to the place that's the bestWhen I lay me down to dieGoin' up to the spirit in the skyGoin' up to the spirit in the skyThat's where I'm gonna go when I dieWhen I die and they lay me to restGonna go to the place that's the bestPrepare yourself you know it's a mustGotta have a friend in JesusSo you know that when you dieHe's gonna recommend youTo the spirit in the skyGonna recommend youTo the spirit in the skyThat's where you're gonna go when you dieWhen you die and they lay you to restYou're gonna go to the place that's the bestNever been a sinner I never sinnedI got a friend in JesusSo you know that when I dieHe's gonna set me up withThe spirit in the skyOh set me up with the spirit in the skyThat's where I'm gonna go when I dieWhen I die and they lay me to restI'm gonna go to the place that's the bestGo to the place that's the best"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4mtlqIfukc

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

Er, my comment about the spritual life of my church was in direct response to someone that implied that it was unhealthy. And you missed, or omitted the "but we sometimes fall short" which is a direct paraphase from the Bible that "we all sin and fall short". Liar, liar pants on fire. More condescension: That's something I'd expect to hear in the Appalachian mountains, or "Deliverance". So now you're implying that I'm a homosexual?"Now that's a handy rhetorical trick! "You don't agree with my spiritual beliefs? Well, it must be those "demons" got their claws in you"." Hey, it's been working all along for you, thought I'd try it out. You've said that my beliefs are stupid and insane, while denying that you're actually implying that I am. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 7 months ago

RS, duplenty! Just look at this mess! Pea soup EVERYWHERE!Father merrill, if you would, please, copy/paste the exorcism rite....[ raspy voices, in unison ] ... merrrrrrillllll !

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

Doh-plenty, it isn't arrogant to point out yours. Sorry, typo.

ReadingSports 6 years, 7 months ago

Ag, nice one. Good to find something that we agree on. Very funny!Duplenty, it isn't arrogant to point out ours."What I meant is that more and more you're sounding like an unworldly, uneducated person." So now It's back to ignorant! Oh and the 'act' in the movie "Deliverance" was a rape, so you've called me a rapist too. Unworldly, why thank you, thats the only nice thing that you've said about me! But that is flattery, and I do sin and fall short, and I don't quite meet that description.As for your demon (is it's name, Legion?) why should that or the possiblity of going to "the hot place" offend you if you don't believe in it?But I hope and pray that you don't. But I think I've had enough insults from you now. We are done.

basil 6 years, 7 months ago

Wow. I have defended women's right to choose, and I do think some of the rhetoric of pro-life groups is, as one poster points out, disturbingly deaf to the implications for the health and safety of the pregnant woman, about whose personhood there is, presumably, no question.THAT SAID, most of the defense of pro-choice positions here is so flawed, whether at the level of logic or law or ethics, not to mention human compassion, that I am appalled and ashamed to be associated with them in any way.I find the argument that a fetus is a baby when it's wanted and something else when it isn't not only legally untenable but morally suspect.If you have ever seen an ultrasound of a fetus at 13 weeks--well within the timeframe for legal abortion--I would say you might not be so flip about that timeframe. I speak from experience. (And looking at static images of ultrasounds online won't do it.) We need to be able to have a conversation about this. At the very least, I think we need to move the timeline back. Medical research has clearly shown that the fetus is not only viable but also developmentally much more advanced at an earlier age than we used to think. We should benefit from these discoveries for the benefit of all, not stumble blindly forward with slogans.I do think there are grey areas that are worthy of discussion. But until people on both sides of the debate are willing to inform themselves more fully, this debate will continue to be ugly and divisive.

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 7 months ago

I can not imagine a God that will force women to breed against their will, he even says he does not breath life into their womb until months after their pregnancy begins.Further, the bible advocates priests giving bitter herbs to force miscariage to women who become pregnant due to adultery. For some reason the religious reicht forgets that. As a Christian, I simply choose to take every opportunity to remind them that when they ignore or present only part of the Biblical teachings, they are bearing false witness and therefore betraying God and doing the work of the anti-christ

Commenting has been disabled for this item.