A Different Kind of Blog

news and things sacred and irreverent put together by opinionated people.

A Caveman’s View on Abortion

Posted by lawman2 on December 5, 2008

cza0783lThis Caveman’s view on abortion is not based on some religious totalitarian rhetoric. Instead, on SCIENCE FACTS.  My wife is pro choice  moderate… as she feels it is a  fight to deny women the right to control their own fertility. I am just a caveman but in the last few weeks I have been doing a lot of reading and studying on the issue, this by no means makes me an expert… BUT these are my thoughts on the matter anyway: 

Maybe the right wing Christian conservatives are just trying to control and fight to deny these women the right to control their own fertility, BUT THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.  I too  am sick of the church and their totalitarian control in our nation, and I hope someday our country as a whole will recognize not only the right of individuals to hold their own religious views, but also the rights of those to have freedom from religion as well! 

The real issue here is the rights of the mother to be, mabortion-throwore important than the rights of a child developing in her womb?  Why should she have a choice and the child who has no voice yet suffer… deprivation of life?

 

 

 

eca6xnurfca3kas73cagaceg5ca5o7ln1cawcawnucaefc2mfcaohr33yca2e0rh1ca33qcqoca5nx10zcawh1aiocad0t9xjcai511f0ca9f479mcala42zicasq8tsqcafl64gfca15ilknEver heard of embryology? Basically, it  is the study of the development of an embryo. If you examine pro-choice arguments for abortion, you will find the proponents using such terms as “tissue” and “grams of material” (a weight). What they do not like to discuss is what that “tissue” consists of. In fact, the preborn human fetus is genetically a fully human being at the point of conception.

 

abortionContrary to what many non-scientists believe, human beings are not constructed in the womb – they develop. In fact, all the major organ systems are initiated within the first few weeks after conception. The process of embryonic development is a continuous process, with no obvious point at which the fetus magically becomes a “person.” In fact, the development process continues well after birth, including many characteristics that determine our personality or personhood. What are the stages in human embryonic development? Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception.  There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception. This is only 7-10 days after a women would expect to begin her menses. Since most women have cycles that can vary by this amount, they do not discover they are pregnant until after this point. Therefore, all abortions stop a beating heart, even “early” abortions. However, most abortions do not occur until 4-6 weeks after the fetus begins to form. The human brain begins to form on day 23 is formed enough to produce brain waves by 6 weeks, which means that most abortions destroy a functioning human brain.

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology(pp 2-18): “Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

Essentials of Human Embryology(pp. 1-17): “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”

Human Embryology & Teratology(pp. 5-55): “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments…  The zygote … is a unicellular embryo… “The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or … to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book.” (p. 55).”

In Conclusion: The science of embryology tells us that human beings develop rapidly after fertilization of the egg. In fact, since the heart of the fetus begins to beat by 24 days, virtually all abortions (other than “emergency contraception”) stop a beating heart. In fact, since most abortion occur between 4-6 weeks, they also destroy a functioning brain. Even modern embryology textbooks agree that human life begins at conception. Since abortion ends human life, one must ask the question whether abortion is justifiable homicide or murder

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “in the womb“, posted with vodpod

 

 

Material for this article came from the following web sites:   http://steveskojec.com/2008/09/09/chaput-makes-abortion-simple-enough-for-a-liberal-to-understand/#comment-3481  – I have a lot of respect for Steve Kojec, even though I am an atheist and but just a caveman.

  http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/12/4/abortion-myth-about-depression-falls-before-science.html   http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3991/  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169295,00.html    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryology  http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/scienceabortion.html

 

You can read more caveman’s perspectives from lawman Just A Caveman

Advertisements

110 Responses to “A Caveman’s View on Abortion”

  1. tothewire said

    You do love a great debate now don’t you? Abortion must be kept legal, especially for all the rape and incest pregnancies.

    Like

  2. kathy (kayms91) said

    Wow! An excellent post… thank you for posting that Lawman! How, HOW can anyone be pro choice with this scientific evidence?? I just don’t see it… it’s like they have blinders on, literally!! Being a woman, I can certainly understand the fight against someone else telling me what I can and can’t do with my life / body. But in this case life clearly should take precedence over the right to choose. Women need to get off of their prideful selfish pedestals and face this truth!! I came to the realization of a great analogy in our society about government ‘controlling’ our bodies. While it doesn’t seem ‘fair’ that women are the ones who’s lives and bodies will change dramatically with a pregnancy… there is a male comparison… the draft! I know that there is no draft at the moment but realizing that my nephew, upon turning 18, had to register, just incase, made me realize that if that is not government telling someone what to do with their bodies I don’t know what is! And the potential down side is not 9 months max of inconvenience ( if a woman chooses ) but for men, and men only, it could be the loss of their entire life!! There are human responsibilities in life… the men do it, at a far greater cost, and don’t even complain but women will ‘kick and scream’ even at the cost of their own ‘flesh and blood’.

    Like

  3. kathy (kayms91) said

    And another great point that someone made… women DO have control over their bodies, they do have the right to choose… they can CHOOSE to have sex or not have sex… it’s real simple… if people would follow God’s will then there wouldn’t be any problems!! If you are not married… don’t have sex and then you won’t have to face an unwanted pregnancy. It’s that simple… just like Bill Keller says… when you follow the Bible, your life works!! If you don’t follow the Bible, you encounter all kinds of problems… just do the ‘math’….

    Like

  4. justice4mothers said

    Having had the joy of having two babies, and the thrill of watching the second one hop around in my uterus (on ultrasound) when he had the hickups, and hearing his heartbeat for the very first time made my heart jump. These little fetus’s are human beings and do have rights. A very good post….I do agree with Tothewire though that there must be some exceptions.

    Like

  5. Lawman2 said

    oh tothewires god did kay just quote keller again?

    Like

  6. Lawman2 said

    hello there justice4mothers!good seeing you here again!i must respectfully disagree with both you and tothewire.i hate having to be on the same side as kay when she starts quoting keller…but (not for the same reasons) we do agree on this issue.

    Like

  7. […] by Tothewiretothewire on Caveman’s Response to Fox News Post by TothewireLawman2 on A Caveman’s View on AbortionDocumentary Highlights Violence in Porn Videos « RightsForMothers.com on Documentary […]

    Like

  8. Rj said

    Hi everyone

    @Kathy

    women DO have control over their bodies, they do have the right to choose… they can CHOOSE to have sex or not have sex… it’s real simple

    Well what about when they don’t get to choose [to have sex]? Does that make abortion justifiable? Doesn’t seem so simple to me.

    when you follow the Bible, your life works!! If you don’t follow the Bible, you encounter all kinds of problems

    So those who are oppressed and victims of crime, have they not followed the Bible–or, forgive me if it was only referring to choosing to have sex?

    @ lawman

    I’m glad you did your research. I appreciate when people look for themselves.

    Since abortion ends human life, one must ask the question whether abortion is justifiable homicide or murder

    Based on your findings and your conclusion, is it life, if it is not viable outside/without [of] the mother?

    Obviously we know that a zygote/blastula/gastrula cannot sustain on its own….but even going down the line…what about at 24 wks, a possible viable fetus–but it will have severe complications or death…but I suppose that is placing value on a human life–and that’s another discussion!!!!

    Would love to know your thoughts.

    Like

  9. kathy (kayms91) said

    Hi Rj… When I made the statement about women choosing to have sex or not, I was well aware of the exceptions… the majority of abortions are not the result of rape etc. and those are the ones I was referring to. As for the other situations when a woman didn’t have control of her body…do I think that abortion is ok? Absolutely not. Not in any way, shape or form. You may ask… what if it is me that is the unfortunate one or someone that I love… again, absolutely not. It is not the unborn child’s fault. To abort them would punish them not the one who committed the offense. Yes, the woman’s life has been made harder… but easing her / my pain by taking another’s life can’t be justified. I think this saying applies perfectly here… two wrongs don’t make a right.

    I do believe that you’ve brought up good points. Obviously, there are exceptions to everything…I understand that things are not always that simple… but in general terms…way more often than not…you will find that people are happier and their life does work when they follow God’s will.

    Also, you asked the question… is it a life if it is not viable outside the mother’s womb. With that logic… would that also mean that anyone who cannot sustain life on their own is not considered a life? What about people that are kept alive with the aid of machines etc.? They can’t live on their own… so should it be ok to ‘abort’ them too?

    Like

  10. Lawman2 said

    wecome rj! i visited your site…not sure tothewire would like the site BUT i sure did! http://thearjayconception.com/

    anyway, i think it is life yes.but that would be a hard debate to win out right i know.

    Like

  11. Rj said

    @ Kathy

    in general terms…way more often than not…you will find that people are happier and their life does work when they follow God’s will.

    I find it very hard to accept that statement, please understand, based on what I have seen. If I were to compare those that follow God’s will to those that do not (which would include those that follow Buddha, or no one, or whomever), I would not be able to find any distinction. They all have the same happiness, or, lack thereof.

    Also, if “two wrongs do not make a right” how would this apply when Christians engage in war? Don’t Muslims think they are right, and Christians think they are right…who is right if right is relative?

    What about people that are kept alive with the aid of machines etc.? They can’t live on their own.

    Those matters are decided by “others” also though, typically family members. A person on life support cannot make a decision for him/herself…Similar, indeed, to a pregnant mother deciding for her unborn–and yet different because a person on life support is not biologically connected to anyone at that given moment and was previously independent and fully functional–unlike the unborn.

    Those on life support have no say unless they have a plan in place. Would you like for some outsider to come in and make that decision for you, or your loved one?

    @lawman…LOL thanks.

    Like

  12. kathy (kayms91) said

    Rj… I truly find it very hard to accept that you can’t see or acknowledge that if people follow the ten comandments that their life wouldn’t be happier and better! Sorry – I’m not buying that…

    And true… ‘wrong’ is relative in this issue, you clearly believe that it is not wrong to kill an unborn child… and I clearly believe that it is wrong. I’m just going to say that again, I find it very hard to believe that anyone can honestly say that stopping a funtioning beating heart inside a formed human is not wrong… that it is not the act of killing…if you believe it’s not then can you tell me how your definition of kill differs?

    And finally, when I referred to life supported by machines, I wasn’t talking about brain dead people… I was talking about the many people who are dependent on someone / something else to survive… not viable on their own but not brain dead. People who depend on machines because their kidneys nonfunctioning for example. Fetuses have brain activity as well as beating hearts so please tell me how viability outside of the womb is a valid point in justifying their murders?

    And of course I wouldn’t want an outsider making the decision on whether I lived or died if I was on life support and couldn’t speak for myself… just like, I’m sure, an unborn child wouldn’t want someone else deciding if they are going to get to live their life or not.

    Like

  13. timothymillar said

    Nice Post, I believe life begins in the womb and taking that life is murder unless ofcourse, the pregnancy is derived by rape or some other method of non-compliance. If no-one forced you to have sex then you shouldn’t have the right to end that innocent life
    before it gets a chance to grow up. Have A Wonderful Day, Timothy Millar

    Like

  14. kathy (kayms91) said

    Justice4mothers… you posted..

    “Having had the joy of having two babies, and the thrill of watching the second one hop around in my uterus (on ultrasound) when he had the hickups, and hearing his heartbeat for the very first time made my heart jump. These little fetus’s are human beings and do have rights. A very good post….I do agree with Tothewire though that there must be some exceptions.”

    Justice4mothers…I enjoyed reading your personal experiences but you completely lost me when you did a complete turn around… I have to say it makes NO SENSE for you to say in one instance that “These little fetus’s are human beings and do have rights”. But in the very next sentence you say there are exceptions and it sometimes IS OKAY to KILL these little human beings who have rights???? What exceptions??? There is NONE! Could you please explain this…?? This is very frustrating and confusing to me… your view is not unique… there are many people who like to say ” I’m against abortion except… for rape or incest or the mother’s life is threatened”. What it seems like to me is that these people are saying that ” hey.. you made your bed now you gotta lie in it”… that’s why they are against abortion… a STUPID reason in comparison to be against abortion! Abortion is killing of an INNOCENT human being who cannot speak for themselves… THAT IS WHY ABORTION IS WRONG!!! WOW!!! Sorry.. just really frustrated by the ignorance. ugh…Sorry!

    Like

  15. kathy (kayms91) said

    Timothymillar… how is it not murder of the unborn child if they came to be by a crime against their mother? Why is it then ok to kill them? What have they done wrong?

    Like

  16. RJ said

    Kathy,I really was serious about not being able to identify (happy) people based on whether or not they follow “the 10 commandments.” (I don’t come to random blogs just to BS people, and I know you don’t know me, but it is what it is) Because, what I was saying (and I did say it) was that if I was comparing those that follow it, to those that did not, I could not pick the “chosen ones” out of a group of others. Studying various religious, you will see that for all, there are some basic set of guidelines–like the 10 commandments. But by referring to Christianity, you are screening others out. There’s nothing that sets the 10 Commandments supreme to anything else..well…unless you are a Christian…but we already know how world order goes when referring to Christianity.

    If that heart beat does not continue outside of the mother, I can’t consider it killing. Either the mother gave life to it, or God…I’m confused….if it survives, then God Bless. I know you will continue to call me a murderer. But I fully accept that [your label]. Because no one can tell another what to do with their body…live, or die. If you want to shackle and medicate a woman against her will, to take said human life en utero, then so be it. We will be wasting a lot of tax dollars–but then again, wasting would be relative, wouldn’t it?

    Say I did get an abortion? Can’t I just pray to God and ask for forgiveness? Aren’t all the 10 commandments of equal weight? If I am a “murderer” isn’t an adulterer as bad as I am? And can’t we both repent? Will you not be my friend if I killed my unborn? Do I get a chance at redemption?
    Is there one reference specifically to the unborn and abortion in the Bible? The Bible, over the years, has come to say and mean whatever the followers want it to mean? I just can’t be too sure anymore. Maybe the Christians should pray harder for women not to have sex before marriage.

    your view is not unique… there are many people who like to say ” I’m against abortion except

    Regarding what you said above to J4M, I have come to learn that most people who “allow” abortion/”believe in” abortion…or who are simple, not anti-abortion, are mothers themselves. It is common for women to be anti-choice UNTIL they have had their first child.

    Interesting stuff. What a different kind of blog.

    Like

  17. KATHY THIS IS GOD SPEAKING LEAVE OUR GUEST ALONE AND LET THEM GET COMFORTABLE hehehehe

    Like

  18. Lawman2 said

    hey there rj!WARNING DON’T FEED THE KAY

    Like

  19. kathy (kayms91) said

    Ohh my gosh.. excuse me for disagreeing… what a horrible horrible thing to do… again, you guys… some people LIKE to debate… when someone presents a point, it IS ok to respond with their point! A world / society with out debates is a world / society that doesn’t progress… the ‘art’ of debating is not meant to be offensive AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN THAT WAY! And that is where I am coming from. Granted.. I may need to fine tune my debating techniques but at the same time I am willing to overlook other’s shortcomings as well. And you know, most people don’t hang around here because it’s not interesting enough… debates are interesting!! Of course with the exception of the one person who’s losing, I quess. But intelligent people tend to like a challenge and will stick with it. And the REALLY intelligent ones will actually think about the other’s points and maybe reconsider there own. Again, debating is a GOOD thing!!!

    So, with that being said… I will now respond to RJ…

    Yes, you are right, I am saying that the Christian values and ‘commandments’ are superior to other religions but really, you are also right in saying that most do have the same basic priciples… let me ask you this.. if you could place a bet on people who trespassed against others and also God as not being a factor in someone’s happiness.. would you? I wouldn’t, not in a million years… just because you haven’t noticed the difference doesn’t mean it is not true… and I feel extremely confident in telling you that there IS a difference. Just ask the many people who are in prison how happy they are… enough said… it’s really not that complicated.

    You said:

    “If that heart beat does not continue outside of the mother, I can’t consider it killing. Either the mother gave life to it, or God…I’m confused….if it survives, then God Bless. I know you will continue to call me a murderer. But I fully accept that [your label]. Because no one can tell another what to do with their body…live, or die.”

    End

    I will never understand that reasoning… the unborn baby acts/ behaves (in personality) like a born baby with the only exception being that it is still attached to it’s mother. Still dependent on her support. Do you have full knowledge of what goes on in an abortion? And when do you know for sure that a fetus can live outside of it’s mother’s womb… you and others are clearly willing to take the chance of murdering a child ( in the most barbaric way), by your own description, by promoting the legality of abortion. Because I can assure you that there ARE cases where unborn babies are aborted and could have survived outside of the womb. You and others are therefore supporting the murder of innocent babies… and why? how can you justify it?… CLEARLY, your are saying that the rights of women take precedence over everything else!! EVEN THE LIFE OF AN INNOCENT CHILD!! I’m telling you (and others) right now, in plain english… YOU ARE WRONG!!!!

    And yes, of course you ( and others ) can be forgiven of your sins, just like anyone else who breaks any of the commandments. And you are right… I am no different than you, I sin, I am not perfect, and I would hope that I would get a chance at redemption just like everyone else. These are the proper Christian stances / beliefs to take… don’t fault Christianity because there are some who mistakenly don’t take these positions.
    The true Christians ( and they DO exist ) do pray for people to not get pregnant in the first place… your judgements are very biased… but you are not alone… EVERY liberal I have come across is the same way. They use the hypocrisy of some to condemn the whole group… the very thing that liberals are so vocal and critical about in others… bigotry etc. There is a term for this… “reverse ignorance”… you can understand it fully by going to this link…

    https://tothewire.wordpress.com/a-troubling-new-social-ill-reverse-ignorance/

    Also.. it sounds like you are a Rev. Ray supporter… he claims that there is nothing in the Bible that directly addresses abortion as wrong. Of course… that is an incorrect belief… “thou shalt not kill” CLEARLY addresses it! Once again, when the fetus is living, with a heart that is beating, and then is not living with a heart that is not beating because of a deliberate action to cause such… that is the definition of kill… I just don’t know many times or how many different ways this needs to be explained before pro choicers get it! This is really very simple!!

    And finally…. yes, once again you have discovered hypocrisy… some do change their view of abortion when it is them in that position… but again, please explain to me how that has anything to do with the justification of killing innocent life?? Just not getting the connection…

    Like

  20. Lawman2 said

    god kay your comment long enough?you trying to convice us with all that verbal vommit or just yourself?

    Like

  21. Rj said

    I’m really cracking up Lawman and God.

    Kathy, you’re right, I’m making a bet on the viability IF I think it is okay to have an abortion after 24 wks. 24 wks is 6 months…6 months out of 10 lunar months in a pregnancy. And the fact of the matter is, that most abortions occur under 13 weeks. Most. Yes, that does mean that some “real” babies are murdered after that point. It is the minority. But any life lost is a shame. But if you can’t rip the baby out of a woman’s body, and it live on its own, then I can’t consider it murder.

    I was just thinking. If the woman refused to eat, or nurture herself, which would mean the baby also, she would be slowly “murdering” it. This murdering concept is going too far. What do you propose we do– arrest them? Tube-feed them? Extract babies and develop them in surrogates? Sounds really sick.

    I thought people in prison were happy because they went from poverty to 3 meals a day, a stable residence, recreation ad weight-lifting, and a possible education….not to mention finding ALLAH and Islam. Sure beats the heck out of ghetto life. If they indeed are so happy with Christianity, why is the rate of recidivism so high?

    Sorry, I don’t know who Rev Ray is.

    And you’re telling me as intelligent as the Bible authors are…and Jesus..and everybody else, they only addressed murder, period? And not abortion? As simple as it would have been to talk about abortion…as much as babies, children and killing is mentioned in the Bible, the reference to unborn and abortion, just somehow got left out…because they already addressed murder? Seems too simplistic.

    And yes, I firmly believe that people should do whatever the heck they want to their bodies, do drugs, prostitute, donate their organs, detach from their conjoined twin, refuse blood transfusions and AIDS medications, give birth unassisted and/or at home, physician assisted suicide, have anal and oral sex. Kill unborn babies.

    I think we should kill animals for food.

    I’m okay with those things…maybe I’ll just pray a little harder. I don’t want to put policies in place, I just want to pray and not live in a police-state.

    I’m not okay with war and innocent people dying as a result of violence, and the overrepresentation of people of color in prisons with no reform system.

    And that’s where I’m coming from.

    It’s nothing against you…just the policies…LOL

    Like

  22. Lawman2 said

    i wish i didn’t know who rev ray was…he just leaves a bad taste in my mouth

    Like

  23. kayms99 said

    So.. just to be clear.. you are ok with some babies being murdered. Got it..

    and you said:

    I was just thinking. If the woman refused to eat, or nurture herself, which would mean the baby also, she would be slowly “murdering” it. This murdering concept is going too far. What do you propose we do– arrest them? Tube-feed them? Extract babies and develop them in surrogates? Sounds really sick.
    End

    The most likely, obvious scenario here is that the woman is mentally ill… intervening would save her life and the life of her child for which she and her child would later be greatful for… (yah.. that’s really sick)… but your saying to just leave her (and the baby) alone… let her kill them both… it’s not anyone else’s problem and they should mind their own business… I think that’s the other side of it “getting out of hand”. Why is it so hard to accept that the fetus is a separate life from the mother and she should be held responsible for it? That this separate life is just as important as the mother’s in God’s eyes and so should be in everyone else’s. But you and many others consider yourselves more important. Your comfort, convenience, status, time, money etc. is just more important than the life.. let me say that again.. the LIFE of another… and not just any other..but YOUR OWN FLESH AND BLOOD…your own CHILD!!
    If you think this scenario “sounds really sick “… I’m sure I can top that… just let me go find a site where you can view an actual abortion…then tell me what sick is…or hear about what goes on in a partial birth abortion or a live birth abortion… are you kidding me??? What is wrong with you people?? REALLY!! Narcisism to the extreme is the only explanation I can come up with. Sorry… I’m just not understanding where you and others are coming from.

    I agree about the other problems that you mentioned but why do you care so much about those people and not the innocent ones who don’t even get a chance at all? Again… it doesn’t make sense to me.

    And those things that you listed…some of them like prostitution, drug use, and (late term) abortions are for the protection of others that are affected by these ‘private’ choices that these people make. I wouldn’t want to live in the world you are describing and desire. And I wouldn’t want my children or grandchildren living in that world either.

    And… are you still trying to convince me that people who break the law are not going to be less happy in their lives? Again… what I said was more often than not ( overwhelmingly more often than not ) people are going to be happier and their lives better when they follow what the Bible teaches… the situations you described are exceptions… this is just logic and common sense. Give it up.. you lost this one for sure…

    …what else..

    You are claiming that the Bible addresses ‘murder’ but not abortion… correction… the word is not murder, it is kill.
    And it’s so funny how liberals will so often claim how the Bible was manipulated and made incorrect but will still turn around and use it to support their views.. I’m starting to think you are Rev. Ray in disquise. If the Bible is manipulated and ‘incorrect’ then couldn’t something have been said about abortion but was left out? That’s one of Rev. Rays favorite arguments… what the Bible doesn’t say… if it doesn’t address it, it must be ok… that and his other favorite argument that the Bible was manipulated and can’t be trusted… uh.. a contradiction maybe? And of course I can’t forget how he loves to point out the hypocrisy of conservative Christians… that horrible hypocrisy that he actually has proven to be full of himself… like all liberals it seems. oh the ignorance is overwhelming!!

    Like

  24. kathy (kayms91) said

    Maybe you’re of the mindset of many women who feel that no man is going to tell them what to do with their body. That’s what drives them in their abortion stance. There are so many woman who are so threatened by men and the number one most important thing is that a man isn’t going to control them. Again.. even at the cost of killing innocent life in the most barbaric ways.

    What if just as many men as women felt that way when it came to defending our country and freedom. They feel that no one else is going to tell them what to do with their bodies. Men seem to ‘step up’ more than women. And they are required to put much more on the line.. there very lives. Yet while women will fight just as hard it seems… it’s for the right to kill their own child… because no man is going to control them! They will kill their own child before they let that happen!! It’s really sad and outright stupid and ignorant on the part of women. The thought had accured to me that maybe men.. being so jealous that women have that special bond with their children that they are using reverse psychology and secretly are really controlling and tricking women into doing exactly what they want them to do. I know that sounds outrageous but from the ignorance I’ve seen with pro choice women…it has made me wonder if that is not what is going on in some cases. Women have that special role that no man will ever get to experience… no doubt some men have envied that.

    Like

  25. We can say the same thing about abortion that we do about war. I believe it is ones right to actually choose to have an abortion or not. Like I have said before, they have to deal with that feeling and the complications that arise from abortions. No one else does, it truely does not affect anyone else but the woman and the father. War is murder as well but I am congratulated for killing men, women, and children? When I talk to conservative who thank me for my service in the war I ask about thier views on abortion. I am a hero but the woman who gets raped, or knows she is not responsible to have or carry a child is to be stoned? Something is not right with this picture. And life does not begin with conception. If that was true then masterbation would be murder. When the sperm goes into an egg it turns into a zygote. At that time it is just cells. Because the choices of women who get an abortion truely do not affect me in anyway, so I do not complain about a right I fought for. The only reason it affects pro-life is because 99% of pro-life people are religious sheep. What if the pope or equvallent christian figure said that killing muslims would be gods will, do you think these pro-lifers would stop picketing and start killing? I would guess the answer to that as a yes. Those 99% would probably kill for that reason. Because it is “okay” the pope or equivalent christian figure said it is God’s Will. Is it murder, yes. Are you in any way affected by people who make the choice to have an abortion, no. Is there worse things than not living? Yes. The women whom get an abortion because they know that they are not responsible enough to take care of it inside and outside of the womb should be encouraged to get fixed. Which happens after an abortion takes place. Most of the time. Stop bickering about how this is wrong. The pain and trauma of each of these women unless you have gotten an abortion yourself, if that is the case that is your cross to bear, are thier own. Only a heartless monster would not feel pain over the act. What these women feel, is punishment enough. Do not make it worse, instead of critisizing make them feel better. Because that is what Jesus would say to do if he were alive right now. Do not judge or chastise someone because of thier choices in life, you have no right to.

    Like

  26. tothewire said

    E_E I have missed you! I agree with you on this.

    Like

  27. Lawman2 said

    god i hate having to agree with kay on this.but i do BUT not for all the same reasons.this is murder because it ends life, not just a life who has a choice to join up to fight in a war BUT worse a life who has no voice yet.shouldn’t we be more concerned about protecting the rights of the ones without a voice or way to protect themselves?shouldn’t we be going to their defense?the mothers are grown people with the “right”to make better choices!THE SMALL NUMBER OF OBORTIONS BEING DONE TO SAVE THE MOTHERS LIFE OR BECAUSE OF INCEST OR RAPE ARE SMALL, COMPARED TO THE NUMBER BEING DONE OUT OF CONVENIENCE. Should we legalize murder all the way around after all there are exceptions…

    Like

  28. Rj said

    Damn, what do I say after Enkill Eridos?

    @ Kathy

    So.. just to be clear.. you are ok with some babies being murdered

    No, I thought I already made it clear at least 2 posts ago that I am OKAY with your labeling it/me as [a] murder[er]. I said I accepted it. The fact is, that your label doesn’t change the situation one bit.

    obvious scenario here is that the woman is mentally ill… intervening would save her life and the life of her child for which she and her child would later be greatful for

    Another label. Why does she have to be “mentally ill?” You know when you use terms like that, it defeats the purpose of gaining a true understanding. You “otherize” people.

    As far as intervening…I was opining that a woman purposefully doing such a thing would be choosing her own fate–because she didn’t want “others” controlling her body–meaning, she doesn’t want to be saved. So what are you going to do? Medically RAPE her. Force intravenous feeding and shove a hand up her vagina to extract said baby against her will, or cut her open against her will, which would be torture. I start to wonder if Christians get off on violence…

    Why is it so hard to accept that the fetus is a separate life from the mother and she should be held responsible for it

    Because a fetus is not–unless it is viable without the mother. I didn’t say she shouldn’t be held responsible for it. I have been implying that it is her choice. Something is not a separate life if its sole means of existence, it to be inside another being. If anything, a fetus just might be a parasite LMFAO!

    Do you know some women have spontaneous abortions because their bodies reject the fetus as a cancer? Do you know what rh factor is?

    it’s not anyone else’s problem and they should mind their own business

    No, it isn’t. They should mind their business until they can come up with a solution that works and addresses every socioeconomic level. A solution that defies classism, sexism and racism.

    but YOUR OWN FLESH AND BLOOD…your own CHILD!!

    Like commenter above, I can think of several other situations that are worse than death en utero.

    just let me go find a site where you can view an actual abortion

    Seen them, but thanks for offering. As horrid as war photos from Vietnam….and all these homeless men in D.C….and the children in Haiti and parts of Africa.

    partial birth abortion or a live birth abortion

    Rare, and even more rare. The photos probably represent those that were indeed medically necessary. I don’t doubt that they are horrible. So is stillbirth.

    why do you care so much about those people and not the innocent ones who don’t even get a chance at all

    Its not that I care SO much about “those people” (beware, “those people” is a triggering term for me…sounds like you could be talking about Black people or poor people), it is that I am concerned with the status of those living independently on earth. That is my priority. And many of them are “innocent” also. They didn’t ask to be born either, I’m sure…

    are you still trying to convince me that people who break the law are not going to be less happy in their lives

    Again, I didn’t say that. I think you keep reading what you want to read into it. I thought it was quite simple, but if you really don’t understand, then it has been an error in my communication.

    First, we weren’t talking about people “who break the law,” we were talking about following the 10 commandments, or not. I said that there is not distinction between those that follow it [and are happy] and those that do not [which would include those following a different set of principles, and those not following anything at all].

    Is lawmen unhappy?

    And if he is, can we say with certainty, that the causal factor is his lack of following the 10 commandments?

    this is just logic and common sense. Give it up.. you lost this one for sure…

    I’m really cracking up now. Not mentally, but you know, laughing. Logic and common sense have nothing to do with religion.

    claim how the Bible was manipulated and made incorrect but will still turn around and use it to support their views.

    Well, it was. But “we” use it to support our views since you insist upon declaring its sanctity. It is the best tool we both have. And you cannot deny that as intelligently as the Bible is written, they just happen to leave out references to unborn and “kill” [in the same sentence]? Or, wait, maybe it’s in one of the Lost Books…..

    I still don’t know Rev Ray. I guess if I cared, I’d look him up. But I really have lots of Sinful things to talk about on one of my blogs. Plus, I have other blogs. And no, I am not him. If he goes around speaking on random blogs, he has a lot of time on his hands. I may do the same thing if I were getting paid.

    Maybe you’re of the mindset of many women who feel that no man is going to tell them what to do with their body.

    No man, woman, robot, extraterrestrial, animal..

    What if just as many men as women felt that way when it came to defending our country and freedom.

    That would be their choice. Perhaps we wouldn’t have any more wars. Maybe we could just talk things out instead. You know people die in wars.

    Men seem to ’step up’ more than women.

    Wow. Are you serious? You must mean step up for war and violence…I agree with that. But if that’s not what you meant, then men may step up more because of societal conditioning…a response to the big bad Patriarchy.

    I hope that you are not angry, or that you do not expect to get a rise out of me, because then, you have lost. I find this conversation thoroughly enjoyable.

    Like

  29. Rj said

    @ Lawman

    shouldn’t we be more concerned about protecting the rights of the ones without a voice or way to protect themselves?

    I think we should be able to choose who we are more concerned with. You are free to choose to be concerned about the unborn, and I am free to be concerned with the born. However, as it stands, you can’t control what someone does with their body, but we have a lot of power to fix tragedies that are occurring, and have been occurring, so that we can improve the lives of all humankind. In the end, everyone will benefit, and perhaps there would be no need for abortion.

    I also think that we shouldn’t have government laws on the books that control people’s bodies. It is in invitation for disaster.

    THE SMALL NUMBER OF OBORTIONS BEING DONE TO SAVE THE MOTHERS LIFE OR BECAUSE OF INCEST OR RAPE ARE SMALL, COMPARED TO THE NUMBER BEING DONE OUT OF CONVENIENCE.

    True. True. But “convenience” is an issue with which you take lightly. It is a judgement call that you cannot make unless you are in that position [of the pregnant mother].

    Should we legalize murder all the way around after all there are exceptions…

    We have plenty on the books already, war, death penalty, psychiatric drugs, Guantanamo Bay,

    Anti-choicers will always argue that this is about life. And that’s why this will continue to be an argument.

    Like

  30. Lawman2 said

    birth control for men is in our near future…this debate may soon be over yet!i believe men will put an end to this debate we being the more logical of the two sexes.i don’t care how sexist that sounds or unpolitically correct.just the facts.

    Like

  31. tothewire said

    you’re such a nerd lawman

    Like

  32. RJ I like your style. I hope I do not have to post anymore on this subject. I am really dark and morbid this time of year. I have shared my view which has not changed and will not change. But this is for lawman. Thinking about the good of the human race if a woman thinks she would be lacking in taking care of the fetus and later the baby if the baby survives the pregnancy. I do not classify this as “Convience.” I call this curbing the stupid out of our already retard saturated gene pool. Look at George W. Bush, perfect example of why abortions should never be illegal.

    Like

  33. Lawman2 said

    well, you made a good point there E!

    Like

  34. Rj said

    LMAO.

    thanks.

    I also am dark and morbid during this time.

    EE–the folks at Freakonomics would agree with you.

    Lawman–consider it a mercy killing…just kidding!!..but can tell you that during slavery, Black women did abort AND kill real live babies in order to not subject them to the conditions at that time. I’d have to argue that that is an honorable and strategic decision of which only that mother knows the true pain. And don’t give me that, but we’re not slaves anymore….that’s a whole different argument…and my stomach is hurting right now.

    Like

  35. Well RJ it is a whole different topic, I gotta write a post I may do it today I will not reveal what it is since whenever I say I am going to do something on a subject it magically appears. So it is going to be a subject related to this topic.

    Like

  36. […] Comments Enkill_Eridos on A Caveman’s View on AbortionRj on A Caveman’s View on AbortionLawman2 on A Caveman’s View […]

    Like

  37. dorian9 said

    life is one of the precious things on earth. however i will draw the line when morality once again imposes and infringes upon individuals’ FREEDOM of CHOICE.I will not choose abortion for myself “out of convenience” and I wish others would not abort for the same reason. but I would not condemn, either by my own heart and especially by way of pushing for government mandate, a woman who will opt for termination of a developing zygote in her own uterus because she was victimized and violated by rapist or an abusive father. sure the POTENTIAL for life begins when the ovum is fertilized by a sperm. but that zygote is literally and scientifically attached to the woman’s body; an internal appendage if you will, drawing life from its host mother via the proteins and oxygen from her blood.until that life potential is delivered from the womb and takes its first breath on it’s own, it is dependent and subject to the mother’s choices. – before i go on, let me say first that i am not for late term abortions – to continue, say abortion is made illegal in this country. where would those women go for abortions? again thru the back door butcher clinics.wire hangers. should i go on? e_e is right, every woman or man that do not want children or not responsible enough for children should be fixed. intra-uterine devices for women and vasectomies for men. or abstain from sex. this abortion issue is purely a morality issue and always accompanied by contradictions. because how many pro-lifers are okay with the iraq war? how many pro-lifers are okay with capital punishment? if you are pro-life your logic would be that you would be okay with paying tax money to keep manson,bundy,stayner,dahmer, jack the ripper alive in a prison with 3 square meals and recreational facilities. so let’s leave it as a pick-and-choose belief system. the no exception rule is not democratic nor just. for those who choose to abort for “inconveniencing” reasons, they will answer to their conscience. here’s my pick-and-choose: okay with early abortions in cases of rape or incest. okay with capital punishment, (lethal injection) for violent criminals. and alas because i’m pro-choice albeit moderate, the moral and righteous will cast me into the death-by-stoning holding camp anyway. i figure we live in the twenty first century where science and religion and spirituality and materialism must co-exist. there will be differences in what people choose to believe. i just wish people would find it in their hearts and minds not to impose a “right” or “wrong” judgement call on anyone else’s beliefs – it’s okay to express an opinion or debate but to opt to punish someone for what they want to do with their own bodies either with necessary abortion or euthanasia (the other issue involving choice) because of your own moral or religious belief ?? that belongs in the grim dark ages of inquisitions and witch hunts.

    Like

  38. dorian9 said

    RJ – just read your posts, they weren’t there while i was finishing my post at different intervals. anyway, i like what you said “…and I am free to be concerned with the born”. this leads me to question if any of the anti-abortionists have even taken a few seconds to imagine what goes on in the hearts of minds of those victims of rape and incest? surely a woman can empathize? so can a man who have loved ones that are female? empathy is irrelevant of gender but the ones that are vigilant about anti-choice based on moral issues who happen to be male strikes me as most violating of my freedom of choice. makes me think “honey, you don’t even have a uterus, and you’re telling me what i can’t do with my body?” most of those victims are young women who had no choice in their situation and horrible circumstances. to take a sweeping stroke and criminalize abortion with no exceptions show complete disregard for these human beings. the moral issue should be extended to the victims as well and not just to the unborn.

    Like

  39. Rj said

    Well, I think that about wrapped it up. Thank you to everyone who participated (I’m kidding okay, because this isn’t even my blog, nor was I invited here)

    Dorian, “they” don’t take the time to imagine what goes on….a lot people don’t have the epiphany until they are on the other side of the fence, and often I “pray” that they will never join me there.

    I have a blog about d.v. and rape, maybe you’d like to stop by…

    Like

  40. Lawman2 said

    and it is a great blog! http://www.thearjayconception.com/

    Like

  41. Rj said

    Lawman, that isn’t even it. I talk about very Sinful things on that one and you know it! LOL

    Like

  42. kathy (kayms91) said

    Wow.. be careful what you wish for…I was missing a good debate and I’m glad you came along Rj…you really are a dream come true for me because you’re on the “no win” side of the debate…I’ve already proven that with many others who did eventually just give up – they had no choice – but unfortunately their ignorant stances never wavered…sad but I’m not going to stop trying. I do wish there was more time in the day… because this IS my favorite time of the year and I’m sure for all people who love God…( let me just say now.. please don’t come up with some insignificant minute exceptions.. it doesn’t pertain to my point, which is people who love God and people who don’t).

    ..way back in the begining I said:
    ” when you follow the Bible, your life works!! If you don’t follow the Bible, you encounter all kinds of problems… just do the ‘math’….”

    You chose to argue this point and you did so with very weak EXCEPTIONS…and also the statement that you personally can’t differentiate the happiness of those who do and those who don’t. ( I personally think that if you can’t see the difference it’s because you don’t want to see the difference ).

    Common sense does apply here… again, it’s really not that hard to comprehend… obviously you have a strong adversion to the Bible and so will continue to argue my point even though you know it is true… this is obvious to anyone reading. It’s called denial.

    you posted:

    (Me) So.. just to be clear.. you are ok with some babies being murdered

    (You) No, I thought I already made it clear at least 2 posts ago that I am OKAY with your labeling it/me as [a] murder[er]. I said I accepted it.

    (I haven’t learned how to do the italics yet…sorry)

    Sorry… maybe ‘ok’ wasn’t the right word. But really the way I see it, bottom line, that word does seem to apply… because you are for letting it happen as opposed to trying to prevent it. It is acceptable to you (ok) more than forcing a woman to follow thru with a situation that she herself chose to take the chance to be in… ( yes I know about the exceptions…not talking about that right now). So actually, no, I think ‘ok’ does apply… it’s the word happy that doesn’t apply here – right? Doesn’t matter… you and others are not bothered enough to stop innocent life from being murdered… And to point out… that sentence, when looking at the tiny undeveloped fetus doesn’t sound harsh BUT in your’s and other’s vigilant stance to make sure a woman has control over ‘her’ body in those early stages, when to most people it seems insignificant, you are allowing those other “rare, and even more rare” (one SHOULD BE one too many) instances to occur. And you are OK with that. You and others ACCEPT that. I’m sorry but that is twisted and SICK! Take an imaginary scale and put the woman’s right to choose on one side and the slaughtered baby on the other side… that’s what I see. Some things ARE more important than ‘freedom’. That is what the Bible teaches… loving God IS more important than an individual’s will. Human beings have become extremely narcisistic over the span of our existance.

    What if it was you, or someone you loved on the slaughtered side and freedom on the other? Are you still ok with that? I’m going to guess no… it also seems to me that hey, you (pro choice people) have your life..so your fine, your set… tough luck for the other person who didn’t get the chance to have their life like you did.

    And also in response to “rare and more rare” acceptable exceptions…I am a person, a conservative, who is NOT for the death penalty… you know why? Because I know that there are INNOCENT people being executed. So it seems right to not allow it until we have a method to be sure that only the guilty are punished. That I am pro life DOESN’T mean I have a problem with the guilty receiving capital punishment if the crime fits. The BIG difference here is innocent versus guilty.

    you said:

    “..Force intravenous feeding and shove a hand up her vagina to extract said baby against her will, or cut her open against her will, which would be torture. I start to wonder if Christians get off on violence…”

    Sorry… still not even close to the barbaric things that happen to live INNOCENT babies who are being ROBBED of their RIGHT to their lives! NO COMPARISON!! I truly wonder about you and others like you!?!

    more to come…

    Like

  43. dorian9 said

    so http://www.thearjayconception.com/ is the sinful blog? going there if it is…

    Like

  44. Rj said

    Yes, Dorian, as you have seen, lots of hot, sexy stuff..

    @ Kathy. All the arguments have been made, objected, overruled, and sustained. We have let the witnesses enter and leave and all have heard the testimony. I have nothing further, your honor. I’m not giving up, just moving on. Now, I want to talk about clitoral orgasms. Can you start a new post? LOL

    Like

  45. Rj said

    And I can teach you how to do italics, if you’ll excuse my sinful nature and cast your judgmental animosity out with the baby and the bath water…I mean, the unborn fetus/parasitic/cancerous/lifesucker and the placenta.

    Like

  46. Lawman2 said

    lol i know just couldn’t help my own “sinful” nature…hehehe

    Like

  47. kathy (kayms91) said

    You go right ahead… I know all of the liberals here will love it…

    Wow..who could have predicted that?… But even though you are choosing to give up…oh.. I mean move on.. I’m still going to respond to the rest of your points. And that’s ok.. I’m used to your ‘conclusion’ to the debate… like I said… you all really have no choice but to ‘move on’.

    I’ve said this often and I’m going to say it again… if you can’t defend your views then maybe it’s time to reconsider your views.

    If someone accused me of putting myself before the life of an innocent baby then I would certainly do one of those two previous things mentioned… defend my view or reconsider. I KNOW that I wouldn’t just ‘move on’. My conscience and self respect wouldn’t let me.

    Like

  48. kathy (kayms91) said

    Rj…you said:

    (me)obvious scenario here is that the woman is mentally ill… intervening would save her life and the life of her child for which she and her child would later be greatful for

    (you) Another label. Why does she have to be “mentally ill?” You know when you use terms like that, it defeats the purpose of gaining a true understanding. You “otherize” people.

    terms like that? Mental illness is real – how does using that ‘term’ defeat the purpose of true understanding? MOST LIKELY, in the situation you described, the woman is suffering from a real affliction and needs help. But you don’t want to help her because that might impose on her ‘free will’. Yes, maybe she isn’t mentally ill (highly unlikely) but how are you ever going to know – you’re minding your own business. How are you going to get a ‘true’ understanding by doing that?

    Just look at all the casualties of staunchly defending ‘free will’. Is no price too high?

    You say that you ‘care’ more about the born… what you and other’s care about is YOUR rights.. period… above everything else. You care about the government “imposing and infringing” on YOUR freedoms. (I see the scale again… imposing and infringing on one side and killing on the other – it’s really so clear). You like to say that you care about others but it can’t be the case… because how could you honestly care about others in any way shape or form and at the same time be ok with a living innocent baby be torn to pieces while still alive? How can you ‘care’ about some people that you don’t know and not others? How can that be? The bottom line… Pro choice liberals ONLY care about themselves. They are fooling themselves if they think otherwise. Oh and I can’t forget about the people who above all else, care about not having to admit that they were wrong… can’t forget that. I think that’s a side affect of narcisism.

    I said:
    Why is it so hard to accept that the fetus is a separate life from the mother and she should be held responsible for it

    You said:
    Because a fetus is not–unless it is viable without the mother. I didn’t say she shouldn’t be held responsible for it. I have been implying that it is her choice. Something is not a separate life if its sole means of existence, it to be inside another being. If anything, a fetus just might be a parasite LMFAO!

    ” something is not a separate life if it’s sole means of existence is to be inside another being”? Says who? You? I must have missed that part in the constitution.

    you said:
    Do you know some women have spontaneous abortions because their bodies reject the fetus as a cancer?

    I’m not getting the relevance… are you saying a person’s body commited murder? Or because nature caused the termination that means that it’s ok for others to?

    You said:

    (me) I love how liberals claim how the Bible was manipulated and made incorrect but will still turn around and use it to support their views.

    (you) Well, it was. But “we” use it to support our views since you insist upon declaring its sanctity. It is the best tool we both have. And you cannot deny that as intelligently as the Bible is written, they just happen to leave out references to unborn and “kill” [in the same sentence]? Or, wait, maybe it’s in one of the Lost Books…..

    Again, your point doesn’t make sense… you say the Bible is “incorrect” but then make the implication that if abortion was addressed as wrong in the Bible THEN you would acknowledge that it would be wrong.

    Yes the Bible is intelligently written… by many different authors and many years ago… you are right in my opinion that the Bible has been manipulated. And it really shouldn’t be that hard to understand that some things may have been left out for whatever reason over the many many years and different influences.

    You said:

    (me) Maybe you’re of the mindset of many women who feel that no man is going to tell them what to do with their body.

    (you) No man, woman, robot, extraterrestrial, animal..

    I hear ya sista!… I see you and all women who demand their right to choose, standing proudly and defiantly upon a huge huge pile of DEAD BABIES… you go girls!!! NO ONE is going to tell you what to do with your own bodies!!! Over your child’s dead body, right??!!! That’s right! You tell ’em!!

    Like

  49. Rj said

    I really hate to leave you hanging Kathy, since you apparently don’t understand that I’m finished. So I came back again, not really to see if you had written anything, but to see whatever funny stuff Lawman or others had to say. And I don’t want you talking to yourself..because this whole insanity appearance isn’t a good look with the Christian-wear.

    I hate repeating myself. Really. And you still insist on trying to say that I wasn’t clear, or that I didn’t make any sense. You just didn’t like what I said. And that’s okay with me.

    You see, in the sum of everything, you’re not that important in my life right now, and I could stand to think, that neither would you be to any woman seriously considering aborting.

    You can call it giving up, I really don’t care. I am choosing my battles. You have presented, as you wished, and have not made me waver in my stance. I gave you the opportunity on several issues, and yet, I am still me, and you are still you.

    I’d say I defended my views quite appropriately. The only problem is, that YOU can’t/won’t accept them. I have–so there is no need to reconsider based on what you have argued.

    No epiphany here.

    My conscience and self-respect, really only concern ME, now, don’t they?

    I really did enjoy things though. And I was hoping for something new, to make me view things from maybe, 182degrees, instead of 180. If this is how you approach those that you are trying to convert, I would see where you would have trouble because of the attacks and judgements. People who have been victims (of people violating their bodies) don’t appreciate this. It raises their guard and completely shuts you out. Learning moment lost.

    Show some love and compassion and understanding. And keep on praying.

    I should have warned you that it is hard to argue with people like me of the sign that I am under. I already know where you’re coming from.

    Like

  50. kathy (kayms91) said

    Rj… continued..

    (me) What if just as many men as women felt that way when it came to defending our country and freedom.

    (you) That would be their choice. Perhaps we wouldn’t have any more wars. Maybe we could just talk things out instead. You know people die in wars.

    (me) Men seem to ’step up’ more than women.

    (you) Wow. Are you serious? You must mean step up for war and violence…I agree with that. But if that’s not what you meant, then men may step up more because of societal conditioning…a response to the big bad Patriarchy.

    Yes, I am serious… you don’t seem to understand that all of the freedoms that you do have, that are CLEARLY the MOST IMPORTANT thing in the world to you – unfortunately even the choice to kill the unborn – are because men in this country’s history ‘stepped up’. What kind of world do you think you are living in? Sure there are wars that were / are unneccesary and hideous but you really do need to understand that your freedom to choose wasn’t free… thanks to the men who had the integrity to do their part for society – their fellow human beings – people they weren’t ever related to!!

    If for example, radical Islamists get their way… you won’t have the right to choose anymore. But hopefully we will be able to “talk it out” with them. If only it were that easy…

    (you) I hope that you are not angry, or that you do not expect to get a rise out of me, because then, you have lost. I find this conversation thoroughly enjoyable.

    I am not angry… believe me I am enjoying this also… it might seem like I’m trying to ‘get a rise out of you’ but really, I just want to debate this issue ( and knock some sense into you all) and everyone just keeps giving up and walking away – it’s very frustrating when you know that you’ve successfully proven your point.

    Like

  51. Lawman2 said

    rj, you can’t say i didn’t warn you not to feed the kay

    Like

  52. tothewire said

    while we are on warning…did we warn you lawman is a nerd?

    Like

  53. kathy (kayms91) said

    Rj… I pretty much knew you weren’t going to waver in your stance the moment you acknowledged that some babies are murdered and that was ok with you.

    you said:
    I’d say I defended my views quite appropriately. The only problem is, that YOU can’t/won’t accept them. I have–so there is no need to reconsider based on what you have argued.

    It takes two to argue… I could say the same… I defended my views more than appropriately and YOU don’t want to accept them…

    this debate was ended by you because you had no answers left… was it this particular question that did it?

    What if it was you, or someone you loved on the slaughtered side ( of the scale) and freedom on the other? Are you still ok with that? I’m going to guess no…

    I’m so tired of arguing this issue with people that don’t get it. People that DON’T WANT TO GET IT. You all are so quick to talk about how concerned you are for the born, about human suffering but for some reason you don’t think an unborn but LIVING child is suffering when it is killed and only because it is still inside the womb? I just don’t get it. Did you read this article? And if you did, did you immediately block it out? And hide behind your ignorance? Just because you can ignore it, that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. And when you and others are supporting and promoting abortion, you ARE supporting and promoting the slaughter of innocent life. That you can continue, with that knowledge, to ‘unwaver’ in your stance says a lot about you. I would not be able to respect myself. You’ve accused me of judging… and in the begining I try not to but your right… after I have traded views and the other person cannot defend or justify their stances, then yes, I will make a judgement. It’s not a closed minded judgement but since you have ended the debate I have no choice but to stick with the judgement I have made about you on this issue… I’ve made the judgement that you don’t care enough about the life of an unborn baby. Enough to stop them from being murdered…I have made a judgement that pro choice people are selfish. That they put themselves first above even the life of an innocent person. I’m still waiting for someone to convince me that that is not the case.

    My intent really is not to judge others. But that doesn’t mean I can’t say what I believe is wrong according to the God’s word. And saying that doesn’t make me non compassionate or have a lack of understanding of the other’s position.

    You have accused me of these things and also critisized my ‘techniques’ in trying to ‘convert’ people. I am not trying to convert anyone… I do want to help people understand that God loves them and that they should love him in return. But again, to ask people to sacrifice and prove their love by doing his will is just too much to ask of some people.

    Your said: Show some love and compassion and understanding. And keep on praying.

    That one really has me baffled.

    And I have to tell you that every point & comment you’ve made in your previous post is nothing new to me… I’ve heard it before.. all of it.. right down to using rape victims by trying to twist things around to make it look like I’m insensitive to their hardship. All of these desparate tactics don’t go unnoticed.

    Your post might have sounded to you like you were ‘setting things straight’ but to me it clearly was a resignation. I actually felt bad.. also not new in debating this issue with others…but I’m not going to stop trying to ‘remove the blinders’ that an ‘ill’ society has put so tightly in place just because it’s causing people to feel bad in the process.

    Like

  54. kathy (kayms91) said

    Rj.. I don’t know if you’re still checking/ reading here… but a couple of things are bothering me… first, I visited your site and I didn’t know that you were a ‘WOC’… I apologize for ‘sista’, if it offended you (using that slang) I didn’t mean to.
    Also, yes.. I’m slow sometimes… I wasn’t getting some of your points – I do have concentration problems. I get what you were saying… I think we were running along two different lines of thought? You were saying that you couldn’t tell the difference between people who follow God’s will as opposed to those that don’t. Which you said would include people who worshipped different gods. I can see your point because many of these other religions have the same basic principles. And also non believers of any faith also have their own similar principles. My point was that people who do follow what the Bible teaches… for example.. not having sex before marriage, the ten commandments, including thou shalt not kill, etc., these people will be happier than those that don’t live by these Christian ‘rules’. For many obvious reasons. I think you’re saying that Christianity doesn’t have a ‘corner’ on this ‘market’ of happiness. But being a Christian.. I do disagree, but on the other hand… I just recently learned that Bill Graham (whom I greatly respect) stated that people of other religions (Budha etc.) CAN know Christ thru their religion. So in that respect I think you are right. But I will say that people who do not know Jesus will not have true happiness. Again, I think if you personally are not seeing it, it could be because of varying factors like for example some who claim they are Christians but may truly not be ( in their heart ).

    And on a different point… I also understand that you were saying that if I use the Bible to support my views then you (and others) will also use the Bible to support your points… and that doesn’t mean that you agree with the Bible when you do use it to argue the points.

    And the point was that the Bible never address specifically the act of abortion, so me, as a follower of the Bible should take that as a valid point. But I don’t because I am not one of those that believes that the Bible is without errors.
    My statement about others who claim they are Christians but have stances that are against traditional Christian teachings … they WILL use what the Bible doesn’t say to support some of their views and when their views are different from what the Bible does say, then they will claim that that part of the Bible is incorrect. And I see that you don’t fall into that category because it seems that you are not a Christian.

    I just wanted to clear all of this up.. or try to anyway…

    Like

  55. Wyndee said

    Wow.
    That was such a GREAT post. Bravo!

    Kathy, i love your passion.
    Check into child sacrifices in the Bible. They are there. God also spoke of innocent blood crying out to him from the ground.
    The Bible is without error. If you find something you feel is a contradiction. Study it out and ask the Holy Spirit to give you clarity.
    Gods word is perfect. Or God would not be perfect.
    And if God is not perfect, why serve him??

    We may not see the ending of abortion before Jesus returns…. but wether God ends it or not, no matter what we see with our eyes, Gods word is still true.

    Great article.
    =)

    Like

  56. Lawman2 said

    hey there wyndee!everytime i try your link by clicking your name it doesn’t take me anywhere…?

    glad you enjoyed the article.

    kay is all heart! she even tolerates the ol’ caveman pretty well! not many women do…lol

    Like

  57. kay~ms said

    Lawman.. you’re not that bad… actually, you’re the glue that holds everyone together!

    Hello Wyndee… thanks.. and I can’t tell you how nice it is when the right (both definitions) post here! We are definitely outnumbered on this site…
    And I appreciate your input… I don’t feel comfortable saying that I feel that the Bible has errors… and of course I don’t believe that they are God’s errors but man’s. The result of man’s free will. What seems to make the most sense to me right now is that the true MESSAGE of the Bible IS complete and correct. And that is God’s intention… to force people to look into their hearts to figure out what that true message is. Many people will use the theory of translational errors etc to discount the true message and that is a direct result of what is in their hearts.

    Like

  58. Lawman2 said

    why thank you kay!maybe you could put in a good word for me with tothewire…hehehe

    Like

  59. Wyndee said

    LOL. Lawman I actually don’t have a blog, and don’t ask how I came across this.. kinda funny cause I was surfing for something entirely different! =)

    I was really surprised to see such awesome-ness!! =)
    Hopefully there’s no charge for awesome-ness… (and hopefully those reading this have seen Kung Fu Panda)

    Kay, of corse man makes mistakes. However, the Bible is the inspired word of God, and he said its perfect, living, and sharper than any two-edged sword. Spoken and established on Earth, releases Heaven.

    If more Christ followers would believe what they read, and not read what they believe we would be in a good place!!

    =)

    Like

  60. Lawman2 said

    hey wyndee is back!well glad you made your way to our different kind of blog here!hehehe

    no charge here!most of our readers read and run…lol

    i am an atheist,but i do have strong beliefs on the holocaust on the american unborn.holocaust may seem like an unlikely word to use here,but what better word could be used to describe the genocide of the unwanted unborn here in amarica?

    it bothers me and kay that my little (christian)liberal obama voting wife’s justification for murdering the unborn is due to her belief that the right wing christian base is waging war on women.love my wife,don’t misunderstand me there.but it does bother me she follows that rev ray whatever his name is so blindly.

    kind of like kay does that bill keller…hehehe

    anyway,that should catch you up to speed on why the post was written…

    Like

  61. Wyndee said

    Thanks for catching me up. =)
    I’m really surprised by so many things here. hahaa. Your views on abortion, and your wifes. I guess it goes to show ya, abortion is not just a religious thing. Gives me hope actually.

    It’s difficult for me to imagine mostly because I have so many dear friends, and myself, who are struggling to have children. Then there are people who see them as such an inconvenience. Especually since we’ve created so many forms of birth control.

    I have a 6 year old, one friend of mine has an 8 year old and another a 9 year old. (and theres more) All of us would love to, and have exhaused quite a lot of efforts trying to have more babies. My own sister, adopted 2 beautiful children. My nephew is 16 and started college to be some kind of doctor I can’t pronounce! Lol. My neice is a sports nut!! Plays every sport, smart as a whiste… a little spoiled. =) But they are AMAZING parents.

    I also have 2 friends who were raped and had the babies. They are my heros. My one friend, she kept her son and he is 18 now, amazingly smart. He was building websites and writing music at 16!! My other friend, gave that baby girl up for adoption and she is 4 now. She still visits her often, but it blessed that family so much to have her.

    Its sad though, because the more I read, the more I realize women are being so lied to. I wish I could find the article from an ex-abortion doctor. He opened the first 11 clinics, and then later quit business and exposed a tremendous amount of lies. To sum it up, when women come in they don’t EVER use the term ‘baby’. He said it connects them with the ‘fetus’. They counsel them on how long, and hard and emotional it is to choose adoption. Warn them, councel them against it… But never on the effects of abortion. To top it off, they have no post-abortion counseling, nor do they recommend it. When women call after, with regret, and emotion, they tell them its normal. Which is probably the only truth they tell. He said several women call with suicidal tendencies. They are so guilt ridden. When they come in they are looking for someone to tell them ‘it’s not a baby’, ‘you’re doing something ok’…. ect. I bet if doctors told them, yes it is a baby, abortion would greatly reduce.

    Well, anyway.

    I plan to keep up educating people. =) Thats the most I can do.

    Like

  62. Lawman2 said

    hey there wyndee!i agree with you completely.this subject is close to my heart,as my wife and i are trying to conceive a child.i am almost 50 and she is almost 40.we waited late in life i know.we were responsible.it kills me to see all these men and women NOT being responsible.and then just disposing of their unwated child as if they were taking out the trash.i do feel women(and the general public)are lied to,by not only planned parenthood but also by our politicians themselves!!!i think often of bill clinton and his yelling at the pro-life advocate on national t.v. to shut up,and pro-life was engaged in a war AGAINST WOMEN.what the hell?
    you know if a man were to beat his pregnant girlfriend up,he could be (and should be) chaged with attempted murder of the unborn child.yet the same women can have an abortion and it isn’t considered murder?so it really depends on WHO does the killing if it is murder or not.pretty stupid huh?

    Like

  63. Wyndee said

    YA!! Totally!!! You’re right.
    So sad about you and your wife. It breaks my heart so bad. I’ll actually start praying for you guys. Tell her that, she might think its more exicting than you do. lol.

    I’m actually going to Redding CA. this weekend to hear the speaker who started The Call (the pro-life movement at the white house-red tape w/ life on it) Lou Engle. He’s a radical Christian speaker but I thought since he’s well known you may know who I’m talking about.
    Anyway I’m really looking forward to it. Getting a tiny bit of his passion will drive me for another year! =)

    Like

  64. Lawman2 said

    wyndee!we’re pregnant!well my wife is pregnant!just took 5 test!!! i posted a new post just now!i am so damn excited!!!! https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/caveman-wife-and-baby/

    Like

  65. Hors Service said

    Hi all!

    I’m french, just passing by, doing some research for an english test.
    So please be nice to my grammar;)

    Here we don’t really have the same problem anymore, having (pratically) solved it by birth control. Easy : authorise abortion (to certain limits… But if the foetus is “blessed” with a serious genetic disease, why should we let him live a life of pain?), and make contraception cheap and easy to obtain!

    I am quite surprised that you talk so little of condoms, pills and other easy means to get the pleasure to be two without the inconvenients. (And for that matter, no sex before wedding is not in the 10 commandements, neither in the Bible ;)Quite a lot of freedom,instead.)

    Consequences : Little number of abortions. Because SOME are NECESSARY, but an abortion is always a difficult, painful act. It’s ending a life to come. So we avoid convenience abortion.

    Anyway, why does religion is part of the debate? I know catholic prochoice and atheists prolife. But you can’t IMPOSE your views to others “because God said”. It’s blasphemous;) Use moral and scientific arguments instead. There’s a lot of them.

    As a parenthesis, it always surprise us frenchs how conservative religion has a deep influence in America… I find it quite fascinating.

    Like

  66. kay~ms said

    Hello Hors Service, welcome to our site and thank you for your comment. I am one of the few conservatives on this site – most here are Liberal thinkers with views similar to the majority of Europeans including yourself.

    I admire much of what many of the European countries have accomplished in terms of dealing with common social issues/ problems.

    The conservative base here in American desires the same resolves but without forsaking any of our moral foundation… which is the core of our lives because it is God’s will.

    Liberals, here and abroad, seem to think that a society can’t advance and also stay in line with traditional moral teachings and beliefs. And that is just not true; there is always more than one option in dealing with difficult issues…but the Liberal and European view is that the EASIEST way to deal with social issues and problems is the way to go… abortion being the primary example. And this is a perfect example of why it is so important to adhere to fundamental moral beliefs… the legal act of abortion fully represensts the horrific and inhumane results that can occur when casting morals aside. And it can only leave a person wondering what will be next…

    We (conservative) Americans recognize this growing problem.. the Liberal agenda…to demoralize our society in order to ‘advance’ it… it takes a strong resolve and moral foundation to persevere and not give in as most of Europe has done. I recently read a poignant description, can’t remember who said it, but it described Europe as being “morally confused”…

    You said: “Here we don’t really have the same problem anymore, having (pratically) solved it by birth control. Easy : authorise abortion (to certain limits… But if the foetus is “blessed” with a serious genetic disease, why should we let him live a life of pain?), and make contraception cheap and easy to obtain!”

    There are organizations here that do make contraceptives easy and cheap to obtain but I’m sure we could do better in that department. As for a fetus that has a serious genetic disease ” why should we let him live a life of pain? ” We can’t know for sure if this person would live a life of pain…we can’t know if he / she would still have chosen to live their life in spite of their defects… it is not right to make that judgement for someone else.. plus, cures are discovered all the time… this is another example of the injustice of casting morals aside and ignoring God’s will.

    Like

  67. Hors Service said

    Hi Kay,

    I totally agree with you when you say “to think that a society can’t advance and also stay in line with traditional moral teachings and beliefs. And that is just not true;”

    I find really disturbing that some parents don’t teach their children things like honesty, respect, civism… It should be the basis! And Japan is a good (but not perfect) example of a successful marriage between tradition and modernity.

    But tradition isn’t always good. Like we used to burn witches, or incarcerate homosexuals. Or racism. Sometimes you have to put old behaviors in question, and then decide to keep or modify things. Morality isn’t the same as tradition, to me.

    And I disagree when you say “because it is God’s will”. Morality is not necessarily religious. Humanity, freedom, kindness are common to whole mankind. (I personnaly think that being moral “because if not God’s gonna send you to Hell” is a kind of bad reason).

    And in a third point, abortion is quite new. Nothing to do with tradition, it’s only for the last century that medicine has allowed us to have clean abortions. Before, it was throwing them in a dustbin… But it certainly needs a good debate.

    To confront your argument:
    1) Well sometimes we know for sure that they can’t. The ones that make you agonize at 3 or 4 yo.
    And sometimes the family is ready to accept a deficient member (I know a nice family with a trisomic, it’s difficult but they’re happy), sometimes not. It can break a couple, because unconsciently one accuse another to be responsible for the result.

    2) The pregnancy can be dangerous for the mother.

    3) If you’re raped sometimes you don’t want to live with the souvenir for 9 months. Neither does the child when he will be born.

    My point is, if you REFUSE abortion and know you could struggle, have your child adopted, or so, then nobody will force you. But you should have the choice.

    And, overall, learn children to sistematically use condoms!

    /I always wondered what does all the monotheist religions have against sex ?!? Seems really natural to me./

    To finish, don’t mix debate with confusion 😉

    To compare stereotypes, for us Americans have the reputation to be rigid, borned, closed and overall hypocrites puritains, who have invented freedom but hotly denies it, it being against God’s Will 😉

    We have quite a full history of religion and world wars held in the name of morality, so we became quite shivorous to this thema. We have seen what it could do. We often prefer to refer to Human Rights. Another type of morale.

    Good night

    Like

  68. kay~ms said

    Hors.. I just want to clerify… when I said “traditional moral teachings” I meant fundamental Christian teachings… sorry, I should have said that… tradition is not the issue with me, it’s fundamental Christian morals which also happen to be traditional.

    I very much agree with what you said about parents not teaching their children core values like honesty, respect, fairness etc., that is a huge problem here I believe. I agree that these things should be taught to children first and foremost before anything else.

    And I acknowledge that it is not a requirement to be a Christian or believe in God in order to have moral values… and it is not right to impose religious beliefs on others especially thru government.

    The Liberal argument is freedom of choice; life and liberty to all… and conservatives believe the same.

    The problem is that with abortion being legal the unborn are not afforded their rights; their freedom of choice, to liberty and life. Not only that but the processes used in terminating them are ILLEGAL as forms of PUNISHMENT for even the worse people who have purposefully hurt others… cruel and unusual punishment is illegal!

    Legalized abortion is a fundamental human rights atrocity!! There is no justification for taking an innocent human being’s life.

    The reasons that you give to support legalized abortion are valid arguments but not strong enough to justify killing another life… it really is that simple.

    There is nothing that can morally justify stopping the beating heart of another human being.

    You said: “To compare stereotypes, for us Americans have the reputation to be rigid, borned, closed and overall hypocrites puritains, who have invented freedom but hotly denies it, it being against God’s Will “

    Conservative Americans believe in freedom with bounderies… abortion is a great example of how destructive freedom can be when the boundery lines are blurred. Liberals don’t like bounderies and they fail (or refuse) to see the resulting repercussions of such.

    Conservative Americans (Christians) believe that there is someone greater than us that we will have to answer to … we understand that we are created beings…
    And true Christians don’t follow God’s will out of fear but out of love for the One who loved us first.

    Like

  69. Hors Service said

    For the stereotype, just joking, I know that you’re not that stubborn. Hopefully. I believe too in freedom with boundaries, that’s what Law is all about. I just wanted to mean that one shouldn’t give moral lessons too fast, because as a country you have quite a lot to worry about yourself. We don’t sell guns and war equipement to children or youngsters, for example. (Not that you personally agree with it, but as a country)

    As for the matter, I don’t think that I am myself exactly a Liberal, well, I support regulated economy, strong justice and scolar exams…

    You said :“There is nothing that can morally justify stopping the beating heart of another human being.”

    I absolutely agree. And I hope you’re against death penalty too. But I just doesn’t recognize the foetus as a full human being. A human to come, true. But not a human yet. It’s scientifically impossible to draw the exact line between both states (like it’s often the case with science), so I think it’s an ethical choice. Like, one second before conception, we have sperm and ovula, neither of them a human, then they meet, and KA-TCHING, one second later it becomes a full human? (No irony meant) To me, Law has to draw the line.

    Last, you base your morale on Christian Beliefs and Tradition. Ok, but then, legalize abortion for Muslims, Jews, and Atheists? I think you will agree with me, that’s impossible. That’s why I prefer to see your arguments (which are good ones, I must admit) from a purely philosophic point of view.

    I totally respect Christians and their belief, but I would prefer that you follow God’s Will out of reasoning… Some does.

    Like

  70. Could you clarify what selling guns and war equipment to children mean? Because the last I checked to own a rifle in the US you need to be 18. There is a loophole to that if you get a rifle as a gift and you are under 18 as long as your parent of guardian gave it to you and filled out the paperwork (there is a lot of paperwork.) then it is legal. But what do you consider “war equipment”?

    Like

  71. Also abortions have been around as long as humanity has had long pointy sticks. In some cultures the roman culture shows examples of that, it was something that happened when a woman was not faithful to her husband. Now it has become more evolved in the sense that abortions now do not mean the mother will loose her life, but it is not a new thing. Just like HIV and AIDS is not a new thing it was just given a name not too long ago but if you look at some historical evidence there are documented cases of patients that has gotten sick and those sicknesses have a lot if not identical to symptoms of AIDS. In the Dark Ages, coincidentally the Dark Ages was around when the church was first founded, but before the inquisition and science there was a documented sickness called the wasting. That is when a person could have been strong all their life and suddenly became weak and progressively got sicker and sicker. This is where the whole incubus/succubus fairy tale came from. In actuality if you look at the reports from then and what we know of medicine now we can say that those people had HIV/AIDS. This debunks the conspiracy theory that the virus is man made to cause genocide in certain ethnic backgrounds and sexual orientation. Abortion is horrible and barbaric but there is too much of a gray area to say it is unethical and therefore unlawful. This is why the Roe v. Wade case holds so much weight. There are different people with different ethics, what I consider as an ethical decision another could say it is not. Also legalized abortion could also be the lesser of two evils. Before abortions became legal and there were medical clinics, women would abort their pregnancy in a variety of ways. The most popular was something called a back alley abortion which did more harm and sometimes would kill both woman and child. If you ever heard the expression ski mask and a coat hangar that is basically describing a back alley abortion. There was also heavy drug and alcohol use that did this as well. Of course those did not end any better anyway. If I had a choice between making that legal and abortions legal I would choose abortion.

    Like

  72. Hors Service said

    What you explained is quite close to what I meaned, even if “sell guns” only would work too. In some Gun Shows, you have little 22 long rifle guns, with a nice blue or a pink belt to go with, at disposition to offer to your children. (according to Le Monde)
    And in families, nobody will come to check who’s carrying the gun.

    Here in France having a gun is really difficult, and war equipement (As silencors, bulletproof jackets…) is unaccessible in the normal market.
    And I think it’s a question of education and society too: even for muggers, carrying a firearm is unusual. Children don’t learn to live with them. The families which have guns and let their children to use it teach them hunting or competition, it’s rarely supposed to be a defense weapon.
    Different cultures.

    And for the comparison, there is no example of slaughters in french schools perpetrated by students.

    Like

  73. Hors Service said

    I pratically agree with your second post, perhaps not exactly on everything but the mainstream approximate my point of view.

    But I seriously disagree with your view of AIDS.

    By the way, never heard of this conspiracy theory, nice one 😉
    The symptoms you describe could be explained by cancer, and the descriptions of old disease aren’t so precise to make this type of definite decision.

    I’ve read from different sources (but can’t cite them) that AIDS came from Africa to USA in 1980’s with hunters. Animal carrier: a specie of monkeys. First contaminations by flesh consumptions. Not sure, though.

    Like

  74. AIDS was classified in the 70’s and was labeled an epidemic in the 80’s. But the first case was in the 50’s or 60’s when a homosexual african american male came back to america after a safari trip from africa. Which actually sparked a consipracy theory about how HIV is a man made virus that the US Government created to kill homosexual black men. True Consipracy Theory too. Of course my views are just my interpretation and could be flawed because of flawed data like a simular old document that was translated for a racist womanizing king. This document will remain nameless.

    Like

  75. kay~ms said

    But Hors Service… do you consider the fetus a human being if it is capable of feeling pain?
    Read comment #38 at this link…
    https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/cavemans-view-of-freedom-of-choice-act/

    As far as the death penalty goes… I’m against it because it has been proven that innocent people do get put to death… if there would ever be an infallible way to determine one’s guilt then I would probably still be against the death penalty personally, because I know that God will eventually right all wrongs, but I wouldn’t spend my time trying to save any of them… if the punishment fit the crime that is. I’d rather focus on saving the innocent.

    Like

  76. Hors Service said

    Nice to see that we agree on the result, but it’s strange that you’re not against it for being a murder of an human being…

    I don’t consider the fetus as a human being even if it feels pain. A lot of animals feels pain. That doesn’t make them human. I think that humanity is something more than just reacting to a stimulus…

    Like

  77. kay~ms said

    I am on the fence (so to speak) concerning the action of putting to death someone who truly deserves it… when someone commits the act of murdering someone else… they have made a choice knowing that the end result could be that they will be put to death… therefore, they have made the choice themselves to take the chance on ending their life. The end result was in their hands… they made the decision… all of the people involved in ending his life after that point are just following the established law.

    The statement that I made earlier:

    “There is nothing that can morally justify stopping the beating heart of another human being.”

    It should have read: another “innocent” human being. my mistake, sorry …

    But, on the other hand, I know that God will right all wrongs, that there is a punishment awaiting these people that is far worse than anything here on earth… if they do not accept Jesus as their Savior, which is always a possibility but with certain people, unfortunately it is unlikely.

    But, back to the other hand, God does exact punishment here on Earth also, and the Bible states that God is instrumental in establishing laws and government, so with that in mind… I am not “on the fence” anymore…

    I do believe capital punishment is justified if we are 100% sure of the person’s guilt and it fits the crime that they committed.

    As to the other subject… I knew that I should have worded that differently also… the question should have been… Is it ok that the fetus ( that I know…you do not believe is human ) feels pain?

    Do you believe he/she is not a human because of their appearance, that they don’t look human enough, and therefore it doesn’t matter if they feel pain? They have a beating heart, behave like humans (have brain function) and feel pain but these are not good enough reasons to not kill them? They are not entitled to rights just because they are still inside another person?

    These unborn babies are burned with acid or torn to pieces, while their hearts are still beating… here in this country when someone supports abortion “rights”, they are supporting these actions and allowing them to continue.

    I don’t know what abortion restrictions, if any, that you have in France… are abortions legal after 20 weeks?

    If you think that humanity is something more than just reacting to a stimulus… then that leaves a lot of people out… newborns as one example…

    Humanity, by definition, is having compassion for others… to prevent the suffering of others… to not have compassion for another’s pain and suffering is a non-human characteristic.

    Like

  78. Hors Service said

    Well, if you believe that God makes Laws and Governements, then it seems that it’s a shame to fight Islamists, Dictators and even murderers, because basically if they kill someone, It Was God’s Will;) Some Christian religious extremists are doing that sort of things.
    SO if one abort, It’s God’s Will. Following the logic.

    I’m teasing you, but that’s were putting God everywhere might lead us. You know your Bible, so you have certainly understood that God left us free to decide. In consequence, I think that every product of humanity is the product of only humanity.
    I hope that if He exist, he will take into account my acts and not my beliefs.

    To focuse on the subject,”These unborn babies are burned with acid or torn to pieces”, ?!
    Well, I don’t know the american way, but here the baby is no more than an embryo (For the legal limit is 12 WEEKS, so less than in America, and no debate;)), and can’t live alone outside the woman. So, like a fish outside the water, it dies. Quickly.
    But in most cases, the doctors injects it a serum before the act. Die without feeling it.

    A un-developed fetus doesn’t behave like humans: it’s just establishing connexions, building the inside machinery, etc… For me, I put the limit where the human-to-be don’t need another being for his existence. Just my opinion.
    French laws are more restrictive.

    I have compassion, well, I hope so. But I have also compassion for the woman who is gonna die because of her child… She could have had OTHER childs, a lot more, so why don’t we recognize their rights too?

    Have a nice evening

    Like

  79. kay~ms said

    God is involved in making laws and establishing governments… but obviously not all governments and all laws… I do see your point though… but as an American and a Christian, I am using logic and reason to determine my stance on capital punishment. It makes perfect sense to me. Bottom line… to hold someone accountable for their wrongs against others ( in accordance with God’s will.)

    When you say “no debate” do you mean no exceptions? Because that is one of the problems here… the “exceptions” that allow a woman to kill her unborn child even if the baby is full term. It appears that France is more humane than this country I am ashamed to say…

    You say: “For me, I put the limit where the human-to-be don’t need another being for his existence. Just my opinion.”

    A born child is also dependent on another human being for it’s existence, so it seems that this logic doesn’t make sense.

    I am so baffled by a pro abortionist’s “compassion” for some and not others… especially the people who hurt and kill the innocent, the ones who don’t deserve compassion because they had no compassion for their victims.

    You said: “I have compassion, well, I hope so. But I have also compassion for the woman who is gonna die because of her child… She could have had OTHER childs, a lot more, so why don’t we recognize their rights too?”

    The whole idea about rights is to protect the individual… when protecting someone’s rights is infringing on another’s then it is not “their” right anymore.

    And this point may seem moot to you but the Bible states that God knew us before we were born… when you say that a woman can have other children, this is true, but it will not be the same person/persons, it will be someone else. The child that she aborted had their life taken from them… they won’t get another chance.

    And, sorry to get “preachy” here but I have to address your statement “I hope that if He exist, he will take into account my acts and not my beliefs.”

    You have to know that according to Christian beliefs, which I know are the correct beliefs (and there is nothing wrong with stating that even though the modern Liberal ignorantly believes otherwise) doing good acts will not save you in your afterlife. You are judged soley on your beliefs… specifically, the belief that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for your sins (John 3:16). If you CHOOSE to REJECT what He has done for you… no amount of good works will matter… rejecting His LOVE and SACRIFICE is the ultimate sin and the only one that will condemn you. I hope and pray that you, and every non believer, seriously considers this.

    Like

  80. Hors Service said

    “Not all governements”? Only the “good” ones, hmmm? So who decides which ones are God’s?
    For me, suggesting that God is involved in human affairs is blasphemous. Like, He wasn’t Great enough to make the things good at the beginning, He would have to come back again and again! For an omniscious and omnipowerfull deity, it’s kind of messy.
    *Well death penalty is another interesting subject but not the thema here, so I won’t go further*

    When I meant “no debate”, I meant that it suits everyone, and it’s not a hot subject anymore in France. It’s 12 weeks with exceptions only for therapeutical reasons. And, even being a “moraly confused” country, we have prop. fewer abortions.

    When I meant existence, I meant immediate survival… Like we can make it live by artificial ways. When the technology will become able to reproduce a female uterus, there will be no need for abortion anymore;)

    Compassion is for everyone. Every person deserves to live, to me. Even the worst. For them, death is too little punishment. For the others, death is too much.

    “their rights”, I was refering to the rights of the childs yet unborn, sorry, I’m french, I’ve got a bad grammar. The correct order of the story is: A woman has a fetus that will make her die if he come to life. If she aborts this time, she could have later other children. More. If she cannot abort for the first one, in a certain way, they die, do they?

    For your last statement, I think I could issue a good XD.

    First, YOUR Christian beliefs, please;) Even my traditionalist Catholic friends don’t think like that. It’s really strange beliefs for us;)
    Then, according to you, I could have or make hundreds of abortions, if I believe conveniently in God and Jesus! Even the worst murderers could go to heaven, saved by their faith XD.
    Next, you perhaps Know it, but some people Know otherwise! As convinced as you. I don’t think they all deserve Hell.
    And more, certainly, the 40 billions of humans who died before the Christ are certainly now in Hell, for not having Believed^^
    Why would I believe anyway? Because of 1500 pages of a book? So why the Bible and not the Vedas?

    Apologies for the sarcasms. You’re a kind of interesting person. People of your type are becoming really rare in France. Endangered specie^^ So rare that we sometimes have to import them from the USA^^ Always nice to have a good debate with someone that thinks really different from yourself. Anti-darwinist too?

    Like

  81. Wyndee said

    I offer the following: Love is the highest characteristic of God, the one attribute in which all others harmoniously blend.
    Because of the hundreds of references to love in the Bible, it is certainly the most remarkable book of love in the world. It records the greatest love story ever written‐God’s unconditional love for us that sent His Son to die on the cross (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). Love is not only one of God’s attributes; it is also an essential part of His
    nature. “God is love,” the Bible declares (1 John 4:8, 16) ‐ the personification of perfect love. Such love surpasses our powers of understanding (Eph 3:19). Love like this is everlasting (Jeremiah 31:3), free (Hosea 14:4), sacrificial (John 3:16), and enduring to the end (John 13:1). Love is like oil to the wheels of obedience. It enables us to run the way of God’s commandments (Ps 119:32). Without such love, we are as nothing (1 Corinthians 13:3). Such Spirit‐inspired love never fails (1 Corinthians 13:8) but always flourishes.

    James 4:5 says “The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously” and vs.8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you…

    Why would someone yearn for you if they don’t care about you. Why would GOD, create something in the first place… but then just leave it to kill itself and do whatever it wants. This is plan B. Plan A was the garden. We blew it in a matter of short time. But, some will have plan A again. 🙂
    I dare to say soon…. limited prophecies left to fullfill… =)

    Like

  82. kay~ms said

    It really just requires knowledge of the Bible to determine which laws and Governments are influenced by God and which are not. And it really isn’t “messy” at all. I truly don’t mean to offend you but I have to say that you are making a lot of amaturish and ignorant assumptions… which I have found is extremely common with liberal minded people. One of those being childishly assuming God has limitations. These assumed limitations are expressed in your responses… for example… God would only come back in order to correct His “mistakes”? God interacts with us all the time, at our request, thru prayer. And you are also making an assumption of God’s purpose and plan ( or His lack of a purpose and plan? ). If you step back and look at the big picture, you will see how ignorant it can be to decide such things based on merely your personal, limited understanding.

    And yes, we have the “theraputic” exceptions as well and none of them justifies killing an innocent life.

    You said: “And, even being a “moraly confused” country, we have prop. fewer abortions.”

    See… you’re proving my point… you may have fewer abortions but my quess is that it is because your government is passing out condoms to children… this is a good example of being morally confused…the liberalistic approach is always the easiest way whether it’s right or not. It is not God’s intention for children to be sexually active and for any of us to be promiscuous. There are emotional and physical repercussions for living in this way.
    It only requires common sense (once again) to understand that living by God’s will is the best way.

    You said: “Compassion is for everyone. Every person deserves to live, to me.”

    So I have to ask… what about the unborn child? What, in your opinion, are justifiable “theraputic” reasons to deny these people their “deserved” right to live?

    I did wonder if that is what you meant… the woman’s POSSIBLE future children having rights also… my answer to that would be that until the sperm and egg fertilize there is no person to consider… it takes both to create a person and when the two come together that unique person begins their existence. To abort that person at any stage from then on out is terminating THAT SPECIFIC PERSON.

    You said: “First, YOUR Christian beliefs, please;) Even my traditionalist Catholic friends don’t think like that. It’s really strange beliefs for us;)
    Then, according to you, I could have or make hundreds of abortions, if I believe conveniently in God and Jesus! Even the worst murderers could go to heaven, saved by their faith XD.”

    I had a Catholic friend who grew up in Germany… I had to point out to her one day, when she used Jesus’ name in combination with several profane words (and, to make it worse, she was talking about Easter Sunday!) that it was wrong for her to take the Lord’s name in vain… I had to EXPLAIN to her that is was disrespectful! She responded by saying it was ok… her Priest back in Germany did it all the time! But she did come to understand that it was disrespectful. So when you say that you have traditional Catholic friends who don’t think that way it doesn’t surprise me.

    Here, I have to correct another ignorant assumption… that all you have to do is say the magic words…”I accept Jesus as my Savior” and no matter what you do you will get into Heaven… like God is not capable of determining who truly believes and loves Him and who truly doesn’t. Again, it really is simple… if you truly believe in Jesus and what He has done for you, you will behave accordingly. If you don’t, you won’t.

    You said: “Next, you perhaps Know it, but some people Know otherwise! As convinced as you. I don’t think they all deserve Hell.
    And more, certainly, the 40 billions of humans who died before the Christ are certainly now in Hell, for not having Believed^^ ”

    I completely understand that others are just as convinced that they are right… but if they have learned about Jesus and what He has done for them and they reject Him, they have commited the ultimate sin… they have rejected His love, which is greater than any other, and His sacrifice which is greater than any other. They have turned their back on Him and what He has done for them. There can be no wrong that is greater than this!

    And I’ll just point out again, the missguided assumption that a Superme Being, the Creator of all things, is not capable or doesn’t have the soveriegn power to fairly judge the people who lived before Jesus came.

    It’s kind of like you think that God, Himself, has someone else to answer to… He doesn’t.

    You said: “Why would I believe anyway? Because of 1500 pages of a book? So why the Bible and not the Vedas?”

    Can I ask, what do you believe then? And what do you base that belief on? I am going to go ahead and say that what ever it is, it isn’t as sensible as believing in the One who created you and has revealed Himself thru the Prophets in the Holy Bible.

    And finally, yes, I am also keenly aware of our differences; liberal Europe and the conservative U.S. believe me though.. we have plenty of people here with a European mindset similar to yours.

    And I am also fascinated to be able to debate with someone like you. I am aware that “people like me” are becoming more and more rare in your part of the world… the Apostle Paul, among others, predicted this almost 2000 years ago. And I can tell you that this country is not far behind the Europeans in this respect. You (Europeans) are leading the way in fulfilling Biblical prophecy… what do you think about that?

    As to Darwinism… we covered that fairly extensively here recently… I do agree with some of the scientific theories of evolution… do I believe that we evolved from apes…uh.. no. And just to note… Darwin wasn’t an atheist…. he acknowledged the logic of a Supreme Being.

    Like

  83. Hors Service said

    You’re right when you say that most of the atheists don’t know really well religions, and it’s also the case for a lot of believers, ignorant even of their own religion.

    But sadly, it’s not the case for me;)
    I am very interested in religion since childhood, proud to say that I’ve read the Bible entirely, and I’m going on in Coran and Hinduist holy books. Talked with priests, read essays, been to conferences.
    I’m still not an expert, but I think I had enough material to make my opinion. That’s why I’m sharing it;)

    If you read my previous comment again, you will note that I am not in fact assuming that God has limitations, BUT that your view of God implies that He has limitations, which is different 😉
    If there is a God, He has fitted the world so that the world is perfect, and He doesn’t need to come back after to check if everything is going on well. Supposing that God will help us thru prayers as “I need a new car” or “make her fall in love with me” or even “make this world a better place” is childish and terribly anthropocentric to me;)

    I don’t make suppositions on the Plan, that would be impossible and ignorant. So I don’t associate my will to God’s Will as well;)

    I associate “therapeutic exceptions” to, like, a 9 years-old children raped by her father-in-law who must abort in order to live. (By coincidence, it’s the case actually^^)

    Secondly, it wasn’t easy to fight obscurantism and old habits. Abstinence is an easier way. And I think devoted to failure, because it’s unnatural.
    “It is not God’s intention for children to be sexually active and for any of us to be promiscuous.”
    Since not everyone agree on the subject, our point is that you shouldn’t do it, but if you do it, do it with a condom. It’s the same thing as giving free clean syringes to junkies.
    And I agree that children shouldn’t have sex. But “child” is a purely conventional limit, fixed to majority. The body is mature earlier, and it’s the job of parents to teach children when and how they must begin.
    The other way (Abstinence and stuff) lead to sexual frustration, as in some parts of America…

    “There are emotional and physical repercussions for living in this way.”
    Propaganda^^ Since the body is ready, there’s absolutely no physical contraindication. It’s even good for the muscles and the heart.
    Emotional repercussions? If you call general wellness and the pleasure to be two this way, then call me in^^

    Anyway, having sex freely and with a condom doesn’t mean being libertine.
    It’s a choice.
    I don’t do it every day or even every month, I’ve always been faithful to my girlfriends, and when we broke up it went well in most of the cases.

    And there’s even Biblical precedents to it, but the Bible is full of contradictions (being written by Man), so that’s not a surprise;)

    I never use the Lord’s name in vain, even if I am atheist;)
    See? Different ways of living your faith. So abortion isn’t particularly attached to religion, but to its personal interpretations.

    Remember the Crusades? They REALLY believed, one must say. The Inquisition? That was to save their soul from the Sin. Djihad? To defend our faith against an unholy invader.
    If some can use religious arguments and beliefs to kill others, I prefer not to Believe, thanks.
    Believing doesn’t prevent one to be a bloodthirsty killer (but should).
    See? Even with the same God, different interpretations.
    I don’t believe in Jesus but I live accordingly, do I get half heaven?^^

    What about the muslims? They accept the Sacrifice of Jesus too. But to them, Mohammed who comes after him go further in God’s revelation.
    Hinduists (some, ’cause it’s a complicated religion) say that if you’re refusing Vishnou’s love, and his avatars that came and died for us, you’re comitting the ultimate sin too.
    Seems that either way, we’re dommed^^

    God’s gonna have to answer to ME, and He should better have a Good Excuse for the Mess!^^
    No, If there is a Supreme Being, He is Supreme. I don’t think I’ve implied the contrary?
    But since some of us are supposed to ask him things thru prayer…

    I Believe in (abstract):
    *Humanity
    *Justice
    *Trust
    *Freedom
    *Equality of rigths
    *Man driven only by pride (and love)

    Why:
    *One day, we will overcome the problems since we have done it the past.
    *Sooner or later (but sometimes it’s too late…), the Justice reachs its goal. I hope that very strongly.
    *Basis of relationship and society. A Pact. You play faire with me and I play fair with you, and it’s common interest.
    *Contrary is absurd.
    *Some logic and the observation of my fellows humans, that every feeling derivates from Pride. Except Love.

    It will need more than this few lines but it’s an abstract;)

    “what ever it is, it isn’t as sensible as believing in the One who created you and has revealed Himself thru the Prophets in the Holy Bible.”
    THIS is called a slogan. Impossible to answer, to discuss, I’m faced to a wall^^
    No objectivity, too. No logic in that, but that’s the whole religious point (And it’s not BAD. Religion and logic have nothing to do with each other, it’s as bad to explain religion thru logic than logic thru religion).

    Anyway, like you said about Liberals, I think that Believing is the easy way to get over things. War? God’s Will. What is Earth? God’s Will. You’re ill? God’s Will. Relation between proton and neutron? God’s Will. Reproduction? God’s Will.
    To me it’s a bit limited, and it’s really thinking that God is small to put Him in this places.

    I have a joke about it:
    It’s a religious man, mending his roof, who falls down. In the ultimate moment, he got a grip on the gutter. He is suspended 30 meters up the ground.
    His neighbour pass thru the window, offering help.
    But the man say “I believe in God, he will save me”
    The firemen come with a mattress,
    But the man say “I believe in God, he will save me”
    This time they get up with a ladder,
    But the man say “I believe in God, he will save me”
    Finally he falls, and die, and go to heaven.
    He asks God “Why didn’t you saved me, I believed in You!”
    And God answer “I’ve sent you your neighbour, a mattress and a ladder, but you refused them all!”
    ^^

    Yep, we are fulfilling a Biblical prophecy, like the monks were saying near anno 1000, and Nostradamus prophecies too, and the Mayas one, which say the world is to end in 2012.^^
    Have you read the Bible open-mindedly? It’s unclear, elusive, metaphoric, contradictory, so who are we to decide that we are following some nebulous prophecy? And for that matter, to decide what God is thinking for us? (You should write “I think” in your sentence;))

    To finish:
    “I do agree with some of the scientific theories of evolution… do I believe that we evolved from apes…uh.. no.”
    Your right point is that it’s true, we didn’t evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor;) A mamalian, primate, with fingernails…
    Saying evolution is right for all lifeforms but not for us is terribly anthropocentric and against all scientific evidence, I must tell you;)
    My turn to say that most of Believers often share serious scientific misses, and didn’t read much scientific books.

    Another right point is “Do I believe…”.
    You’re right.
    Science doesn’t require your believing.
    Science just is.
    Whenever you think it’s right or wrong.

    Creationist or “IDists” often lacks good arguments (or real arguments for that matter), so here are some:
    *God launched the Big Bang. Because nothing explains the Big Bang (yet). For he is omniscious and allmighty, he has foreseen every detail of evolution (Cause-> Effect) so that in the end Man appeared.
    *God is the Master of Random. Cause Random exists, but in the end it must choose, so why not a God which would influence the world by this way? Random is the most powerfull force in the universe.

    And my favorite:
    *God created the world 4000 years ago but He created it 15 billion years old. He created the fossils and everything, the radioactivity, all of that for us to exerce our minds. To see if we overcome our beliefs.

    “Darwin wasn’t an atheist…. he acknowledged the logic of a Supreme Being.”
    EXACTLY. Science doesn’t oppose religion, it’s just different! I know a lot of religious scientist who are showing by this way how the Creation is marvellous, and that God designed us to admirate it. For them it’s blasphemous not to use our brain to contemplate God’s Power.

    IN CONCLUSION,
    My point is that your beliefs aren’t particularely religious, even if it’s based on the Bible.
    Since muslims or hinduists have the same belief system as you, you have just moral and philosophical ideas, but arguing It’s God’s Will is inexact.

    On the particular point of abortion, you have a conservative view of it. Very well.
    But since not everyone agrees with you, I think that abortion should be legal until a limit to equilibrate the rights of the mother and those of the baby, and the “Therapeutical exceptions” strongly supervised.
    Nobody is forced to abort, one should use contraception first, but if one did use abortion, one should be provided a healthy abortion.

    Thanks for reading, sorry if I’ve hurt your feelings.

    Like

  84. kay~ms said

    How does my view imply that God has limitations? Could you be more specific?

    You said: “If there is a God, He has fitted the world so that the world is perfect, and He doesn’t need to come back after to check if everything is going on well. ”

    And then you said: “I don’t make suppositions on the Plan, that would be impossible and ignorant. ”

    Didn’t you just make a supposition on His Plan by saying that He would make the world perfect? He gave us free will so that leaves out the possibility of perfection.

    You say that abstinence is unnatural and therefore devoted to fail? There are many things that are “natural” to us as humans and we must be taught to control / change these things.. a couple of examples…it is natural for children to not always tell the truth, it is natural for children to hit when they are angry… to just give in and say it is natural is making a statement that we are no better than animals and are unable to control ourselves.

    I said: “There are emotional and physical repercussions for living in this way.”

    You said: “Propaganda^^ Since the body is ready, there’s absolutely no physical contraindication. It’s even good for the muscles and the heart.
    Emotional repercussions? If you call general wellness and the pleasure to be two this way, then call me in^^”

    First.. fact… the more people you sleep with the more dangerous it is… and of course the risk of getting pregnant for women.

    As to the emotional repercussions… there are the demoralizing aspects of having promiscuous sex… lack of respect for one’s body is another… and also the hurt feelings that one of the two will almost always have when the other moves on.. I could be explaining this better but bottom line… it is impossible to separate sex and emotional feelings.

    It is so true that if we follow God’s will we are protected physically and emotionally.

    to be continued….

    Like

  85. kay~ms said

    continued….

    You said:… “Remember the Crusades? They REALLY believed, one must say. The Inquisition? That was to save their soul from the Sin. Djihad? To defend our faith against an unholy invader.
    If some can use religious arguments and beliefs to kill others, I prefer not to Believe, thanks.
    Believing doesn’t prevent one to be a bloodthirsty killer (but should).
    See? Even with the same God, different interpretations.
    I don’t believe in Jesus but I live accordingly, do I get half heaven?^^ ”

    This is another common missunderstanding that non believers have… they blame the wrong actions of some “believers” on the faith… these people have FAILED to understand Jesus’ teachings and God’s will. Please don’t fault Christianity because of some missguided “believers”… whether it’s a 100 years ago (or more) or today.

    You believe in humanity… but it doesn’t seem inhumane to take the life of one person in order to save the life of another?… and the one who is taken is the most helpless of the two… is that why the CHOICE is made to take the baby? No one should have the power to take the life of another innocent person. You do what you can to save BOTH.

    “man driven only by pride (and love)” Is this the same as people having promiscuous “free” sex? It’s natural and therefore should be an accepted behaviour?

    There is a saying that you may have heard of… ” Pride always comes before a fall”.

    People driven only by pride are not very successful in any aspect of their lives.. most of all personal relationships. They certainly are not happy.

    I said: ““what ever it is, it isn’t as sensible as believing in the One who created you and has revealed Himself thru the Prophets in the Holy Bible.”

    You said:
    THIS is called a slogan. Impossible to answer, to discuss, I’m faced to a wall^^
    No objectivity, too. No logic in that, but that’s the whole religious point (And it’s not BAD. Religion and logic have nothing to do with each other, it’s as bad to explain religion thru logic than logic thru religion).

    I believe that you couldn’t be more wrong here… God is the ONLY logical explanation to our existence… there is no other.

    I base this belief on the premise that our existence is not logical!! Yet, we ARE.

    It comes down to.. where did the first cell or matter come from? How do you get something from nothing???

    I challenge you to give me one “logical” theory as to how the universe was born… or even just a good quess…

    And here is the other angle… an analogy… what if you thought you were the only one on the planet and you didn’t know that other people existed…there is no kind of technology invented ( you are the only person )… you are walking along the beach and you see an automobile sitting on the shore… you see that it has a purpose, a function… now, are you more inclinded to believe that this “thing” just came together by chance… that it washed up on the shore after being randomly assembled in the ocean or do you think that it must have been created by a thinking mind?

    Illogical existence + existence = a Superme Being trying to tell us that it’s way more complicated than our minds are capable of comprehending. THIS is common sense and reality… and logic…

    And I’ll just close by noting how interesting it is that you mentioned pride… because this is the MAIN reason, in my view, why people choose not to believe in God… believing in God REQUIRES humility!!

    Like

  86. Hors Service said

    I think your view of God implies limitation to him because
    *If God is allmighty, and all love, then prayer is useless. Why begging? God already knows what you need. So it’s blasphemous to ask something, it’s pride. Belief and Hope, that’s all.
    *God shouldn’t need to come down on Earth (or send angels, or his “son” or something) to modify our minds in order to make us believe in him.
    *Why should God be involved in Human Laws? He left us free to decide, like you said. So why would He restrain our own laws?

    In consequence, I like the analogy of God as the Great Programmer: He created the Universe code, and now he’s running it. And it’s running smoothly, because He’s Great. If he had to change ANYTHING during the execution, he would be a more or less human.

    So I didn’t made any suppositions on the Plan (aka, the goal of the program), but on the base, the core, the beginning, the way the world is made. It’s of course a supposition, based on the assumption that God exists.

    I perfectly agree with you in the second part of your first post.
    Except on the conclusion.

    Abstinence is to sex what starvation is to eating.
    I meant that when I said “unnatural”.
    Right: we’re not animals. We know to control ourselves. “the more people you sleep with the more dangerous it is”, right too. Right, “it is impossible to separate sex and emotional feelings.”

    I didn’t meant that “free” sex implies a lot of partners. Free sex is free feelings too, it means decomplexed approach to sexuality. Talking of it like talking of political opinion: different practices.
    I went out with all the girls I slept with, and I make love with all my heart.
    And I use a condom;) The risk is then VERY VERY low.

    I prefer going out with girls that have already a bit of experience of feelings: when they say “I love you”, it has more value, because they know what they’re talking about.
    On the other side, I don’t go out with “bitches”. Their “I love you” have no value, because they love everyone.

    Moderation is the key.
    Remember the 7 sins: the danger is lust. Not sex, but the excess of. Like gluttony. Not eating, but the excess of.

    You said:”It is so true that if we follow God’s will we are protected physically and emotionally.”

    Who talked about having it the easy way?^^
    It’s good to live in a bubble, but sooner or later you have to confront to reality. Being hurt is how one’s learn. It makes stronger. It makes adults.
    Anyway, I am following God’s Will. Because how could I not make so? Are you implying that God has limitations?^^

    Now the second post:

    So you’re a TRUE believer. Well, nice^^ A lot of people of different interpretations are in the same situation^^

    As I already said, for me the fetus is not a person yet… So it’s not against the moral to take his life. He deserves respect, but the life of an existing person (like this poor 9 yo girl, she was LESS innocent perhaps?) has more weight.
    What if we couldn’t save both?
    Like conjoined twins. If one only could live, who would you choose?
    Here one human being has less “humanity” than the other, so it’s easier to choose.

    On the subject of Pride, I think you misunderstood me^^ I think that every Human, you, me, since the Pope to the newborn child, is driven by Pride. I believe that, but I don’t think of it as good;) Or bad, for the matter. But it’s another debate.

    Sorry for the mistake, I don’t use habitually english.

    You said:”I believe that you couldn’t be more wrong here… God is the ONLY logical explanation to our existence… there is no other.”

    Well, that wasn’t an answer to the subject of “Believing in God superior to believing in everything else”, but since your faith seems driven by logic (Which is not normally the case… “Believing without seeing”), I can answer you.

    You said:
    “I base this belief on the premise that our existence is not logical!! Yet, we ARE.
    It comes down to.. where did the first cell or matter come from? How do you get something from nothing???
    I challenge you to give me one “logical” theory as to how the universe was born… or even just a good quess…”

    First, on the apparition of life.
    I think that, like a lot of believers, you lack a bit of hindsight. The belief in a God is very antropocentric.
    Life is a chance of 1 on 1 billion, ok.
    BUT there are hundreds of thousand of billions of planets out there capable of recieving life. Sooner or later, one recieve life.
    You kind of act like the Lotery ball: Well I get choosen, how marvellous!!! There must have been a God to choose ME, because it was a chance on a billion!!!
    Nope.
    I think that you underestimate the power of Random, especially for great values of time. You are reasoning in the (Human lenght)/(Human lifetime) reference. Accepting that the Universe wasn’t made for us REQUIRES humility 😉

    Secondly, on the Universe.
    I don’t have a guess. Oh, I could talk to you about quantum mechanics, dimensional distorsions, but they’re only suppositions yet. God is a perfectly validable option. Darwin doesn’t go back to the start of universe, only to the start of life. And it’s a proven theory.
    Now, that Science can’t explain YET the mecanism of the origin of the Universe (but we can go back to the first seconds of it, quite good isn’t it?^^) doesn’t mean Science WON’T.

    I have the same explanation as you to why people believe in a Supreme Being: Pride. Facing that we’re responsible for everything, and alone in a great cold universe, and limited in mind and in lifetime, it requires humility 😉

    Like

  87. kay~ms said

    Hors.. you just proved my point about pride… you described praying to God as “begging”. Only people with pride (egotistical) would see it that way… and I want to point out again that saying… “pride always comes before a fall” what bigger fall than the loss of your soul?

    There are different kinds of pride… the bad kind being egotistical pride. This is the pride that comes before a fall.

    You said: “If God is allmighty, and all love, then prayer is useless. Why begging? God already knows what you need. So it’s blasphemous to ask something, it’s pride. Belief and Hope, that’s all.”

    This statement IS making a suppostion of God’s Plan and Purpose!

    His purpose is for us to love Him on our own… if He had made the world “perfect” He would have “programed” us to love Him…again, He gave us free will so that when we do love Him it is real not forced… much more valuable don’t you agree? It’s not a hard plan to understand… it really does make sense.

    God wants us to pray to Him, He wants us to be dependent on Him, in order to love Him we must first show that we believe in Him and want Him in our lives. And He wants us to know His love for us…He wants to have a relationship with us… this is the purpose of prayer.

    Do you see? He created us to love Him as He loves us. There is no pride in this belief!
    This belief does give us meaning… but meaning doesn’t equal pride. There is nothing wrong with attributing meaning to our existence.

    I do get what you are saying… I’ve had those feelings… “aren’t we special… of all the planets in the universe… we are the only ones..” but it’s a misguided view in relation to God. The Bible doesn’t give us the answers to everything… just the answers that we need to understand God and His plan and purpose… it is prideful to not believe unless you get ALL the answers.

    You say that we are random? I also acknowledge the vast time frame involved here.. and the concept of evolution. But your view implies that there is NO meaning in our existence… we are just a “freak accident”. And it still requires us to reject the BASIC principle of science… cause and effect… the same science that you attribute to the birth of our existence… this is hypocrisy… none of the referrences that you made even come close to explaining the birth of our existence… these theorists try and try and because of their egos will continue to try for as long as man exists but they will fail… it’s the commonest of common sense! This is the “proof” that God exists… and the pride and ego of many will cause them to ignore this. The Bible predicts /tells us this.

    It’s much much more logical to believe in a Supreme Being than that everything happened by chance… the one in a billion… is WAY off…. the odds are much greater than that.

    You, yourself, said that God is a “valid option”… are you choosing to not believe in Him because you believe it is prideful? I’m kind of confused…

    Why are you choosing to favor chance and randomness (and meaninglessness) over Purpose and Plan?

    to be continued…

    Like

  88. kay~ms said

    Continued…

    You said…”Abstinence is to sex what starvation is to eating.”

    I disagree… you can’t live without food but you can live without sex outside of marriage.

    In order to have a “decomplexed” approach to sexuality… you have to “de-emotionalize” sexuality.. and you’ve already acknowledged that isn’t possible… right?

    You said: “Moderation is the key.
    Remember the 7 sins: the danger is lust. Not sex, but the excess of. Like gluttony. Not eating, but the excess of.”

    I think the applicable word is “self-control” not “moderation” as being the key.

    Sex without love IS lust. You are saying that lust was not a motivating factor in any of your relationships? Lust IS the motivating factor that compells people to have multiple partners. Multiple partners = emotional damage.

    Yes, I implied that I am a true believer… because I believe in the Bible… not someone’s warped interpretation of it… the crusades etc. are not supported by Jesus’ words or New Testament writings.

    I do agree with you that the Bible does seem contradictory…you said: “It’s unclear, elusive, metaphoric, contradictory, so who are we to decide that we are following some nebulous prophecy? And for that matter, to decide what God is thinking for us? (You should write “I think” in your sentence;))”

    My philosophy is that the Bible seems this way because it then requires us to decide, on a personal basis, what is truly God’s will and in doing so will reveal what is in our hearts. And that is what God is interested in. If someone is interested in pleasing themselves then they will interpret the Bible in one way… if they are truly interested in pleasing God then they will interpret it another way… the revelation of what is in our hearts is for ourselves as well as for God. To help us with our spiritual growth.

    You said: “Well, that wasn’t an answer to the subject of “Believing in God superior to believing in everything else”, ”

    True… my answer to that is that the Bible is the most reliable source we have to explain our existence and purpose. The Bible is the most verifiable, historically and archeologically … and, most of all, is prophetically accurate. It is logical to assume that a Supreme Being would make Himself known to us and the Bible, specifically, is the most logical source for that communication. That so many men have willingly been martyred for this faith is another major reason to believe in the God of the Bible.
    The question really is… why not believe in the God of the Bible?

    Like

  89. Hors Service said

    /I think that this debate is way off the subject, but very interesting, so if you want, feel free to move it to a more apopriate section of the blog/

    First point, on the matter of belief and begging: then if “give us peace Oh Lord” isn’t begging, I don’t know what it is. I don’t know the english prayers, but the french credo is really this kind: “forgive us”,”Don’t submit us to temptation”,”light us from your glory”…
    Believing in God (or in a religion) isn’t only begging, hopefully. But for a lot of people, it is, sadly. Other kinds of really bad but well spread reasons: fear, tradition, social pressure.

    “This statement IS making a suppostion of God’s Plan and Purpose!”

    I disagree. I made a supposition on God’s nature. On the other hand, with all my respect, next line of yours: “His purpose is for us to love Him on our own”. And you’re constantly refering to “God’s Will” that we must follow.
    Whereas it’s only your interpretation.
    But you believe in it.
    And take it for God’s Plan and Purpose.

    Next point, you’re right in saying that He could have made the world imperfect. As we don’t know his goal, it’s a possibility.
    So according to you, He gave us the choice to love him or not, but we HAVE to love him.
    After reading the Bible, I think that God created us not to love him (as the Bible doesn’t give any reason for the Creation, “God saw that it was good”, the Bible really doesn’t give answers…), but to love each other, and to one day, transcendate our human condition.
    Anyway, why would He want our love? Oh yeah, it’s making a supposition on his Plan^^

    “There is nothing wrong with attributing meaning to our existence.”

    Yes there is. When it’s saying that ourselves, littles particules of a wide and gigantic universe, WE are the center of attention of the Supreme Being!
    Gosh!
    Belief that we have a meaning make us happy, ok. But it’s an artificial paradise. EVEN IF God has a purpose for me, I prefer to use the freedom he gave me to find it alone, thank you.

    “it is prideful to not believe unless you get ALL the answers”

    For me, it is prideful to believe unless you get all the answers, and then it’s useless to.
    And the Bible doesn’t give clues on His Goal, but says that He loves us.
    Believers are to me really strange people. A bit childish. Here we are, little people one a little planet on the edge of a rather average galaxy, in the middle of a Universe so vast and curled that the mind cannot follow, which exist since at least ten billions years, whereas our history as a specie goes for 10 000 years.
    Still, some are saying: Hey! The Supreme Being have created everything just for us! We’re The Chosen Ones!
    Hum. I stay septical.
    “Believing” implicate something absolute. As I’m not sure, I prefer to use DOUBT instead.

    “You say that we are random?”

    I think so. But if you put God in Random, then no problem. It’s the strongest force ever.

    “I also acknowledge the vast time frame involved here”

    No, you don’t.

    “we are just a “freak accident””

    I think so. A beautiful one. And what if our lives doesn’t have any meaning, that we must create it? I think that’s marvellous.
    But you can think that everything was designed for our apparition, it’s a possibility.

    “And it still requires us to reject the BASIC principle of science… cause and effect… the same science that you attribute to the birth of our existence… this is hypocrisy… none of the referrences that you made even come close to explaining the birth of our existence… these theorists try and try and because of their egos will continue to try for as long as man exists but they will fail… it’s the commonest of common sense! This is the “proof” that God exists… and the pride and ego of many will cause them to ignore this. The Bible predicts /tells us this.”

    Ok, so you, like many other religious believers before you, don’t really know what is a Scientific Theory. Let me remember you some basic points

    1st: The theory is adapted to a specific length of time and space. True for a limited area.
    Example: “the Earth is flat” is true if you take only into account the surface of the room.
    Csq: The evolution theory is true since the first lifeform until today. IT DOESN’T EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

    2cd: The theory correspond to a defined series of facts, and can be confirmed or informed by experience.
    Example: The existence of God can’t be proven by experience until today, thereof even if you find in it some logic, it’s not a scientific theory.
    Csq: Even leaving the geological proofs apart, the evolution has been OBSERVED many times, even if it’s a million-year phenomena. The basic principle is universal: The black butterflies have been favored in England during the pollution of the industrial revolution, because the trees were darker. Since the end of industry, the whites ones have taken the advantage.

    3rd: The theory is always modified, refined. And refutable.
    example: BECAUSE IT’S A MODEL TO REPRODUCE REALITY, IT’S NOT TRUTH. We scientists doesn’t dare pretending that we own the truth as the religious does. But that doesn’t prevent some of us to have a big ego^^ We don’t ignore any adversary theory, even silly, if it fits experience.
    We seek ignorance.
    Csq: The Evolution Theory of today has little to see with the original one, and we have discovered a lot of extraordinary ways of evolution, each individual.

    4rd: COMMON SENSE ISN’T ALWAYS TRUE!
    example: Quantum mechanics are against common sense, but they’re verified.
    csq: Evolution theory goes perhaps against your beliefs, but Evolution theory doesn’t care that you believe or not. Even if I’m alone to think it, I could be the only one to be right.

    Thereof,
    “The Bible predicts /tells us this.”
    isn’t a scientific theory.
    Sorry.
    Look at it, the Bible is hundred of pages of words, written by man, and doesn’t contain all the knowledge of humanity.
    The wisdow, if you choose to believe so.
    But taking it for a history book is showing a lack a comprehension of the Holy Scriptures.
    (Yeah, I’ve read that you think that Obama is accomplishing the muslim prophecy^^)

    “It’s much much more logical to believe in a Supreme Being than that everything happened by chance… the one in a billion… is WAY off…. the odds are much greater than that.”

    No, it’s not. TOTAL EMPTINESS CAN BRING SEPARATED METAL PLATES TOGETHER. Random can produce life.
    Even if it’s one in a billion of a billion of billions, THERE ARE billions of trillions of quadrillions of planets.
    As I’ve already said, if you win the Lotery, it’s not different. But God didn’t choosed you to win the Lotery.

    “You, yourself, said that God is a “valid option”… are you choosing to not believe in Him because you believe it is prideful? I’m kind of confused…

    Why are you choosing to favor chance and randomness (and meaninglessness) over Purpose and Plan? ”

    Good, you’re beggining to see my point^^
    God is a valid option, but really less propable than other ones, mathematically correct and that correspond to an extenstion of know properties of space. Selecting arbitrarly God and say it’s the only truth is extremely prideful.
    Second, more profond reason: I won’t believe because I can’t force myself to do something I don’t believe in. I can fool myself, but that would be against my principles. If I believe, I want it to be real.

    I choose to favor randomness, because it’s much more probable than Purpose and Plan.
    Even if makes me unhappy and sad.
    It’s a moral point.
    As I don’t use chemical drugs to have physical delight, I won’t use religious drugs to have mind delight. I won’t feed my happiness with what I know are ,in all probability, lies.

    But I’ve still hope. Randomness isn’t Meaningless. But it’s up to us to find our own meaning.

    Yeah, it’s thougher than hiding behind a nice wall of self-illusions.

    To be continued…

    Like

  90. kay~ms said

    ok… where to start… begging is not a positive word here, it is very demeaning and I don’t know if that is the intention of your use of it. If it was, I can speak for myself and I’m sure for many others, that when we pray to God and ask His help, it is because He has the power to help us and it is His desire to do so. He does not want us to demean ourselves. I think this is a misconception that many Atheists have. Acknowledging that God has the control and power just doesn’t “gel” well with people who are pridefull. And therefore they might see it as “begging” when it is simply us asking our Creator for help. Have you never asked someone for help?

    Next… please don’t assume that when I make a statement of my beliefs that I am “telling” anyone what they must believe. I understand that there is no “proof” that my beliefs are the correct ones… I completely understand that my beliefs are one interpretation… but I will note that this interpretation is the most believed interpretation in existance. And while there may be some that “believe” for the reasons that you stated that does not speak for the majority. There are millions upon millions of people who truly believe in God and what He has done for us.

    You have stated several times that you choose to believe a certain way… I am not telling you that you can’t choose. This is free will.

    you said “EVEN IF God has a purpose for me, I prefer to use the freedom he gave me to find it alone, thank you.”
    I am not telling you how to do anything. I AM making points as to why I believe the way that I do. And, as much as it offends the “advanced, modern liberal minded” people of today… I DO believe that I am right and, liberals, hear this… THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

    So, speaking of why I believe, what reasoning I have behind my beliefs, I will now move on to the scientific portion of this debate…

    First… you are explaining to me what a scientific theory is and it wasn’t necessary to do so… I understand what a scientific theory is… that is not what I’m debating… I have acknowledged the logic and science of evolution but I believe I’ve said this before (to you? not sure) that I do not believe that we evolved from apes. And to date, there is no proof that that is the case.

    https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/the-case-of-the-missing-link-where-are-darwins-predicted-fossils/

    I have been down this road before with a another atheist who is/ was? an author of this site… I’ll just get to the bottom line, which maybe I’ve done already (in our debate, not sure)….

    You say that randomness is more probable than plan and purpose? I completely do not see how that can be since EVERYTHING has a purpose! Science is based on cause and effect…PURPOSE! So you are saying that it makes more sense that we started out of complete randomness and then everything afterwards had a purpose? Why can’t it be that purpose existed from the beginning?

    You say… ” TOTAL EMPTINESS CAN BRING SEPARATED METAL PLATES TOGETHER. Random can produce life.”

    WHERE’S the proof?? And even more… WHERE’S THE LOGIC?? Your statement is an oxymoron.. a fundamental contradiction! “separated metal plates” and “TOTAL emptiness” are not compatible… if there is “separated metal plates” … THERE IS NO TOTAL EMPTINESS!!

    Bottom line… our existence is inconceivable and illogical… yet…YET.. we ARE here… this strongly leans in favor of a Supreme Being.

    As soon as someone explains to me how to get something from NOTHING (in a way that makes sense) then maybe I’ll consider “chance” as the cause of our existance… until then… it’s laughable. It’s extremely laughable!

    You, and other atheists choose to find the meaning your own way… that is your GOD given right.. free will.

    And I completely understand your statement…” I won’t believe because I can’t force myself to do something I don’t believe in. I can fool myself, but that would be against my principles. If I believe, I want it to be real.”

    But I have to tell you that I think that you are presently fooling yourself by “reasoning” that chance is more probable than plan and purpose. Every single part of nature tells us that there is a God. And ultimately, our inexplanable existance IS the proof. Again, you tell me how you get something from nothing and then it might be warrented to give “chance” some consideration… but as it stands now… Atheists are the ones with self-illusions.

    Like

  91. kay~ms said

    “Selecting arbitrarly God and say it’s the only truth is extremely prideful.”

    It is not “prideful” to believe that Jesus is the only way… it is faithful.

    Christians don’t select God arbitrarily… I didn’t, as previously explained. “Arbitrarily” is not applicable here… we have the Bible, we have the Saints, we have a man called Jesus and His Resurrection!! We have His Apostles, who chose to be martyred because they witnessed Jesus’ death and resurrection and knew that He was truly the Son of God and they knew His love for them. And we have answered prayers!! Atheists choose to not put any value on these things but many many others choose to put a lot of importance on these past and present events.

    And I can’t see how pride applies here either. A major lesson of Christianity is humility. To reject God because it is “prideful” just seems like another weak excuse to me. Yes, there are billions upon billions of planets and as far as I know, the Bible doesn’t mention if there is, or isn’t, any kind of other existence… there could be… it’s not, and shouldn’t be, an issue in our personal relationship with God, our Creator.

    And I have to correct you on this… I do not believe, and never stated, that Obama is accomplishing muslim prophecy… the point is that Muslims believe this and the question is presented that possibly Obama believes this also… I do not believe it because Islam is a false religion… it’s prophecies are meaningless.

    Like

  92. Princess said

    AHA! Kay, thank you for proving my point dot dot dot, AGAIN!.

    you sez “a major lesson of christianity is humility”
    well, if baal hasn’t learned that lesson by now, he really can’t be too “major” of a christian.

    you sez “I do not believe, and never stated, that Obama is accomplishing muslim prophecy… the point is that Muslims believe this and the question is presented that possibly Obama believes this also… I do not believe it because Islam is a false religion… it’s prophecies are meaningless.”

    baal believes it, he put a video on youtube about it.

    how do you know that the muslims believe it? (that IS what you said), because baal said it?
    baal must not think that the prophecies are meaningless, otherwise he wouldn’t have regurgitated all that imformation, that i am sure he stole from someone else, on youtube. (unless, of course, it was for publicity for his failing ministry dot dot dot con)

    you conservitudes are all alike. so full of hypocrosies. and bearing false witness.

    and here is that liar baal, on youtube, bearing false witness and being an ass.

    Like

  93. Hors Service said

    /Okay I think i will locate the debate on darwin and science on the page you proposed, and here the part about sex./

    (About Obama I read it in one of your articles on this site, perhaps have I badly read, still possible. I will check when I’ll have time to do so)

    Sorry, my fault, here is a scientifically correct but longer explanation of what I meant by “TOTAL EMPTINESS CAN BRING TWO SEPARATE METAL PLATES TOGETHER”:

    “In a vacuum chamber where really significant vacuum has been made (around 10^-10 mbar, or even more), if one put two not-too-heavy (or without any friction) metal plates and measure their position with laser (easier), one can notice that they slowly slide towards each other.”

    This is an effect of what is called the “vacuum energy”, or whatever it’s called in english.
    At least, we think so.

    If you want an explanation, I would be pleased to offer it to you.
    For a proof, ask the nearest science lab using ultra-vacuum (particle accelerators, for example).

    No time now for more debate, but I will come back very soon.

    See ya!

    Like

  94. Hors Service said

    /Hey I’m back from my real life worries! Time to debate! I hope that I’ve missed you^^/

    You said:
    “I disagree… you can’t live without food but you can live without sex outside of marriage.”

    Ok, then let me take another image: you can live without eating sweets you whole life, but a sweet from times to times makes no harm. Too much is bad.
    And too much sex doesn’t kill you;)

    And we could live without internet, heating, beds, pleasure and intelligence. But that’s not what I really call life.
    Of course, I don’t promote living for pleasure… Moderation is essential.

    You said:
    “In order to have a “decomplexed” approach to sexuality… you have to “de-emotionalize” sexuality.. and you’ve already acknowledged that isn’t possible… right?”

    WRONG.
    Decomplexed mean talking about it, having a life. It doesn’t mean that feelings are torn away. It’s an exchange of feelings, a mutual gift. A proof that you care.
    Of course, some people doesn’t put feelings in sex, they have sex like animals.
    It exists.
    But that doesn’t interest me. Just because it exists doesn’t mean you have to hide from others until you get married, and sometimes you discover things that your husband has hidden (Like SM tendencies…), and you’re his prisoner.
    I don’t think it’s a better approach.

    You said:
    “I think the applicable word is “self-control” not “moderation” as being the key.”

    If you want. Sometimes I have an animal desire for someone, but if there’s nothing more, I just left it. We’re not beasts. The difference between us and dogs is that we can choose to have sex or not. Having none at all is going a bit too far, and even as bad: you’re self-limiting your freedom. Kind of creepy.

    You said:
    “Sex without love IS lust.”

    WRONG.
    It COULD be.
    I like someone enough to have sex with her, but I don’t love her. And she doesn’t love me. As we both know it, we have a very nice friendship.
    And even if it was true, then love is a changing feeling. You don’t have to be married to love someone.

    You said:
    “You are saying that lust was not a motivating factor in any of your relationships? Lust IS the motivating factor that compells people to have multiple partners.”

    WRONG.
    ^^
    You must have had some really bad experiences to believe that.
    Your absolute statement is wrong just because it’s not the case for me. Perhaps in majority, but not in all cases.

    “Multiple partners = emotional damage.”

    WRONG.
    1)It COULD.

    2)Oh yeah sometimes it brings emotional damage. Then, I believe that staying all your life with
    someone you don’t love is a better option.

    3)If everything is clear/If you break up nicely, if you don’t lie, then it doesn’t bring emotional damage. Yep, it’s difficult. But we’re not children. One day, you have to confront with life. Being hurt is part of the life lessons, I think that refusing to face our own animal part or our feelings is childish.
    Playing love is a strange a difficult game. But without love, then what’s the interest of life?
    And sex is a part of the game, I think. A part exclusively dedicated to adults, of course.
    Adults mean here physically AND emotionaly ready.

    In conclusion, to my mind:

    *Marriage is a recent institution in the human history, I wonder how humans were doing it before…
    ^^

    *Sex could be dangerous, emotionaly and physically. Of course. So are barbecue, driving, painting, living. Then one must use protection: choose carefully your partners, and use a condom.

    *God doesn’t need to be involved where there is only man. Sex isn’t immoral. Using people as sex-toys and then throw them up is immoral.

    All this approach gives a smaller rate of abortion. What do you prefer?
    Some of my friends want to get virgin to marriage. I totally respect that, as long as their reason is not God. There’s plenty of good other ones, no need to be blasphematory.

    PS: Now that’s all said and done, time to speak about something that STILL upsets me (with all my respect):

    You said:
    “I recently read a poignant description, can’t remember who said it, but it described Europe as being “morally confused”… ”

    Perhaps we’re confused, but WE don’t carry guns, WE don’t have to show insurance cards to be healed, WE don’t buy hummers, WE don’t kill abortionist doctors, WE at last, don’t think WE are BETTER than the rest of the world.
    Perhaps richer, stronger, healthier than a lot of countries, but NOT BETTER.

    Noone can call him/herself morally superior to a whole country.

    /With all my respects. Please enjoy. Now, on to the next debate, that’s going ot take a long time to write, too^^. Please don’t consider youserlf aggressed by the things I say/

    Like

  95. dorian9 said

    welcome back, hors service, i do miss yours and kay’s debates.
    morality is an individual issue. whoever said that the whole continent of europe was morally confused couldn’t have meant that as a generalization. our country is only 233 years young and we are still learning. no worries, your comments are very respectful and gives a lot to think about!

    Like

  96. kay~ms said

    Hi Hors.. I did miss you and am always glad when you stop by! I do appreciate your views; I feel that you are honest and if I wasn’t a Christian I would probably have views very similar to yours. I think your approach to life is very sensible (on the surface). I am not offended by your views / stances and I hope that you are not offended by mine.

    So with that being said.. I will now respond to your points…

    Yes, you can eat sweets from time to time and it PROBABLY wont’ harm you in the long run BUT it STILL isn’t good for you even in little doses and with most people, it leads to more and more which is very harmful… it’s better to stay away all together. Abstenance is always the best way to go in these situations.

    Bottom line, following the guidance of the Bible (God’s word) is better for you than not following it. Putting God first will bring you greater happiness than not doing so. God’s love guarantees it.

    Having multiple partners is not compatable with our emotional make up. Someone is always going to be hurt. Living for our own pleasure has detrimental affects to those around us. This statement is not limited to this particular subject either.

    You disagreed with all of my statements because they weren’t 100% true… but of the 2 choices… following the Bible is the better way to go. And that is why we have it. It’s a guide that God has given us.

    You said: *Marriage is a recent institution in the human history, I wonder how humans were doing it before…

    Uh, according to historians… women were conked over the head and dragged by their hair to a nearby cave… I’ll take marriage..thanks ;o)

    Marriage, done the right way, is a blessing in so many ways. And that is God’s desire and reasoning for it.

    Hors… I’m sorry that my statement about Europe being morally confused upsets you… I could change it and say that liberals are morally confused (which I do believe is true in most cases) and Europe for the most part is liberal. I don’t know if that would be better. But it is what I believe at this point… any departure from the Bible is going to fall under this category for me. And Europe is leading the way of a departure from the Bible on many issues it seems. A departure from God really. By making this statement, I am not saying that American is “Better”…. believe me… this country is FULL of liberals!! It’s just that Europe is ahead of us on may good things but also on the liberalization / compromise of Biblical issues.

    Like

  97. Hors Service said

    /Going on with the answer to Darwinism. It’s a pretty long job^^/

    You said:
    “Yes, you can eat sweets from time to time and it PROBABLY wont’ harm you in the long run BUT it STILL isn’t good for you even in little doses and with most people, it leads to more and more which is very harmful… it’s better to stay away all together. Abstenance is always the best way to go in these situations.”

    1) In the case of sweets, FALSE. A sweet from times to times really doesn’t have any negative effect, even good ones if you’re practicing sport: I used to keep a sugar in my mouth during marathons, because its energy goes directly to muscles.

    2) With most people?! Gosh, we’re not living in the same world…
    And you know that compulsive eating can be fought only by education, not forbidding sweets…

    3) To come back to sex, it’s really strange that, from all the 7 sins, it’s the ONLY one who should not be done AT ALL.
    Acedia: Resting from times to times is necessary. Doing nothing of your life is wrong.
    Pride: If you’ve done something right, you should be proud. With no excess. Because when you do something wrong, you should be ashamed.
    Glutony: Live without eating?
    Greed: Being thrifty is a virtue.
    Anger: Gosh, if we shouldn’t have emotional reaction, we wouldn’t be there talking about it^^
    Envy: Let’s have high expectations for ourselves, shall we? A bit of emulation is good.

    But…

    Sex: Oh no no NO! Let’s make rules, laws, tradition, so that people would have minimum sex!

    You said:
    “Bottom line, following the guidance of the Bible (God’s word) is better for you than not following it. Putting God first will bring you greater happiness than not doing so. God’s love guarantees it.”

    Some religions use sex as a religious ritual, as a prayer.
    Even some Christians believe sex before marriage isn’t agaisnt God’s Rule, etc…
    This interpretation is YOURS, and even if widely spread in the USA, you shouldn’t say it’s GOD’S RULE.
    Who are you to say it is?
    The Bible is way too vague to assert this.

    Putting YOUR God first gives me more happiness?
    Well, on this subject it leads to sexual frustration, which is very dangerous (with consequence of rape, for example…). Refusing our animal aspect is like refusing our spiritual aspect, it leads to conflict.

    You said:
    “Having multiple partners is not compatable with our emotional make up. Someone is always going to be hurt.”

    False, false, FALSE.
    Really, I mean it^^.
    You should try, if you’re not in couple yet, to have a nice sexual partner. Someone gentle, good-willing, with interest for your pleasure.
    I’ve done so, and I can assure you that none of us two was (I should say, is^^) hurt.
    With each of my girlfriends, breaking up had nothing to do with sex, and sex didn’t made things worse. On the contrary, it’s always a good rememberance.
    And I’m not the only example.

    Believe the contrary if you want, but you’re really wrong this time^^

    You said:
    “Living for our own pleasure has detrimental affects to those around us. This statement is not limited to this particular subject either.”

    True, true, TRUE!
    ^^
    Sex is a pleasure of 2 persons. Those who take into account only their own are really immoral.
    We should always care for the feelings of the others.
    Done the right way, sex isn’t selfish.
    Done the wrong way, sex is selfish, and then loses all interest (I really don’t understand rapist…)

    You said:
    “You disagreed with all of my statements because they weren’t 100% true… but of the 2 choices… following the Bible is the better way to go. And that is why we have it. It’s a guide that God has given us.”

    Nope, the Coran is^^ Or the Torah^^
    So, Jesus was a Real Prophet, but Mahomet was a False one?^^

    Yep, sorry, out of subject.

    You said:
    “Marriage, done the right way, is a blessing in so many ways. And that is God’s desire and reasoning for it.”

    … Marriage was there before christianity, you know. Even before monotheism.
    But I agree with you!
    Marriage is a beautiful institution, the most marvellous proof of love, an act of humility…

    But no sex before marriage?
    Then you get surprises: a Sado-masochist husband, unfilled expectations, brutality, deceptions…
    And if you’re wed to someone you don’t love, finally, then no choice. Hate each other for the rest of your lives.
    Besides, young people are getting married fast, in order to have sexual relations. It’s Human.
    And in the end, it sometimes turns out it was TOO fast.

    You see? No sex before marriage brings in more problems than it solves.
    Marriage, done the right way, is marvellous.
    Sex, done the right way, is marvellous too.

    There’s no need to have multiples partners (as you seem to be afraid of…)
    Just make love with your sweetheart before the wedding, so that you can marry him/her with all your soul.

    /
    Consequences on abortion:
    Sexual freedom mean less abortions, because people are well informed about their own body and the body of the other sex, and they buy condoms.
    At least, all the statistics tell us that.

    France has fewer abortions and a smaller rape rate than America.

    Brasil’s medium age for first sex act is 16,5 for boys, when it’s 17,3 for America and France.
    And Brasil is extremely catholic…

    Sex have no relation with religious belief.

    /

    It seems that you’re going on with this Europe thing…

    Would you mean that the Vatican is immoral? Or Poland? (Yeah, you didn’t mean everybody in Europe, but you’re so absolute in your statement, that i couldn’t not tease you^^)
    “A departure from God really”
    Oh yeah?
    When the Christian Americans will put the need for a universal health protection at a higher priority than opposing abortion, then they will be allowed to talk about *Straying from the True Stem Of God*
    When they will fight gun-freaks more ardently than stem cells scientists, then they will be allowed to deplorate our supposed moral decline.
    When they will defend loudlier the Earth that God gaves us, than people who refuse to heal their childs because *only God can do so*, then they will have the legitimacy to talk about moral issues.

    Europe prefers to protect real people than a pack of cells in someone’s belly, or the decency of old kids who scream and giggle each time they see pee-pee parts.

    Since not everyone believes in the Bible, I don’t see why our laws would have to follow it.
    I thought that the USA were n°1 in religious freedom?

    PS: It seems that I went perhaps a bit far, but the sense is here^^

    Like

  98. Hors Service said

    EDIT:

    “Sex has no relation to religious belief”

    Of course, one must understand it the way
    “Sex has not necessarely a relation to religious belief, and even so, each way (abstinence, sex, neutrality) are represented”

    Like

  99. dorian said

    hors you should drop by and join the fun at

    https://tothewire.wordpress.com/a-christian-conservatives-view/#comment-8082

    get your perspective into the mix!!

    Like

  100. kay~ms said

    Ok..

    You said: “1) In the case of sweets, FALSE. A sweet from times to times really doesn’t have any negative effect, even good ones if you’re practicing sport: I used to keep a sugar in my mouth during marathons, because its energy goes directly to muscles.”

    And I say FALSE. Eating high sugar (processed) foods that are not accompanied with fiber (as in fruits) quickly (and un-naturally) drives up our blood sugar, which is NOT good for us. The only time that would be good for us is if we are, as your example states, going to run in a marathon (or equivelant). Otherwise, it is not good for us… it won’t cause obvious, immediate danger but it is STILL not good for us. There is really no sense in arguing this point… sweets are not good for us. Just because it may not “harm” us in small doses (which can only be an opinion really) that still doesn’t change the fact that it is NOT good for us.

    You said: “2) With most people?! Gosh, we’re not living in the same world…
    And you know that compulsive eating can be fought only by education, not forbidding sweets…”

    Uh, no I guess were not… here in America, where we are not as “perfect”, there is a steadily increasing problem with obesity.

    And do you mean education as in teaching people that certain foods are bad for them? People know what foods are bad for them… the problem is lack of self control in this situation, not a lack of education. Compulsive eating is an emotional issue not an educational one. One sweet often leads to more, there is scientific evidence to this… when blood sugar levels eventually plumet we feel the urged to eat more. (but this knowledge (education) just supports what we already know… that these foods are bad for us yet we eat them anyway).
    A very popular advertisement here for Lays Potato chips is “no one can eat just one”. That’s a good example of the harmful affects of capitalism… exploiting people’s weaknesses (lack of self control). It really is rampant here as Dorian just described with the republican capitalists using dirty tricks to fight Obama’s health care bill. There is a fine line between capitalism and corruption, exploitation and greed.

    You said: “3) To come back to sex, it’s really strange that, from all the 7 sins, it’s the ONLY one who should not be done AT ALL.
    Acedia: Resting from times to times is necessary. Doing nothing of your life is wrong.
    Pride: If you’ve done something right, you should be proud. With no excess. Because when you do something wrong, you should be ashamed.
    Glutony: Live without eating?
    Greed: Being thrifty is a virtue.
    Anger: Gosh, if we shouldn’t have emotional reaction, we wouldn’t be there talking about it^^
    Envy: Let’s have high expectations for ourselves, shall we? A bit of emulation is good.

    But…

    Sex: Oh no no NO! Let’s make rules, laws, tradition, so that people would have minimum sex!”

    Hors, you’re doing some twisting of words here…

    Sloth is not the same as resting.

    Pride: yes, there is good pride and sinful pride.

    Glutony is not eating it’s overeating.

    Greed is putting money (really yourself) before everything else. Thrifty is hopefully for the sake of the wellfare of the family (as one example).

    Wrath is “vindictive” anger.

    Envy is having bitterness towards others who have what you don’t. It’s not having “high expectations for ourselves”.

    And lust is not the same as “sex”. Lust can just be in the mind and it is still sinful.

    And it’s not “minimum sex” it’s no sex outside of marriage.

    You said: “Some religions use sex as a religious ritual, as a prayer.
    Even some Christians believe sex before marriage isn’t agaisnt God’s Rule, etc…
    This interpretation is YOURS, and even if widely spread in the USA, you shouldn’t say it’s GOD’S RULE.
    Who are you to say it is?
    The Bible is way too vague to assert this.”

    I see it a different way… YOU are the one who is misinterpreting the Bible. There are many CLEARLY defined sexual sins described in the Bible. And the ultimate meaning, God’s will, IS presented. The Lord dwells in us therefore we should not defile your bodies. Your argument is similar to the one I’ve heard about abortion… that Jesus never “said” abortion was a sin. (You know, I don’t even know if he ever actually “said” killing is a sin either.. so I guess it’s okay then?) Anyway.. this argument is just another excuse… a “technicality”. It’s people who don’t know how to be honest with themselves and don’t want to acknowledge the truth.

    “My” interpretation is the widely accepted fundamentalist interpretation and it makes the most sense to me. I’ve challenged everyone here to reason otherwise and no one has accepted my challenge to date. Except you but I don’t feel that you’ve out reasoned me so far. If you do feel that you have, please point it out to me…

    Bottom line on this sex issue… sex and love are meant to go together. If they are not then it is no different than what animals do. God has given us rules to protect us. Sex outside of marriage, with someone we don’t love, will be harmful to both people emotionally and possibly physically as well. If we could remove emotions, then emotionally it may not be harmful but as I stated earlier, you cannot remove emotions. “Talking it out” does not remove emotions. You may not be aware of the damage to the other person or yourself but it is there. Everytime you have sex with someone you are giving a little bit of yourself away. When you do find the person that is your true soul mate, you will have less to give her. It will make you sad. But again, you may not be consciously aware of it but it will be in both of your mind and hers. That knowledge will weaken your relationship.

    You said: “Putting YOUR God first gives me more happiness?
    Well, on this subject it leads to sexual frustration, which is very dangerous (with consequence of rape, for example…). Refusing our animal aspect is like refusing our spiritual aspect, it leads to conflict.

    You are saying that a man cannot control his urges? We wouldn’t have enough jails to house everyone if that were the case. That’s another weak excuse. You can get into a lot of trouble by extending that line of thought into other areas of life.

    I said:
    “Having multiple partners is not compatable with our emotional make up. Someone is always going to be hurt.”

    You said: False, false, FALSE.
    Really, I mean it^^.
    You should try, if you’re not in couple yet, to have a nice sexual partner. Someone gentle, good-willing, with interest for your pleasure.
    I’ve done so, and I can assure you that none of us two was (I should say, is^^) hurt.
    With each of my girlfriends, breaking up had nothing to do with sex, and sex didn’t made things worse. On the contrary, it’s always a good rememberance.
    And I’m not the only example.

    Believe the contrary if you want, but you’re really wrong this time^^

    Okay Hors, I’m wrong this time… so I’ll change the word “always” to “most of the time”. Now I am REALLY right 🙂

    You DON’T know how she feels… she may say she is fine with it but odds are either she isn’t or you aren’t. How can you really “love and care” about someone and then be okay with separating? Why did you separate? Did you both become board with each other? I don’t see any love and caring in that. Did one of you become interested in someone else? If so, the other one is hurt guaranteed. Again, you may not be aware but the reality is our emotions make it impossible to not be hurt. You are in denial if you think otherwise. Just the idea that another person can let you go hurts. Again, you may present exceptions but that is not the rule.

    You said: But no sex before marriage?
    Then you get surprises: a Sado-masochist husband, unfilled expectations, brutality, deceptions…
    And if you’re wed to someone you don’t love, finally, then no choice. Hate each other for the rest of your lives.
    Besides, young people are getting married fast, in order to have sexual relations. It’s Human.
    And in the end, it sometimes turns out it was TOO fast.

    If you follow the guide that God has given us, these things are much less likely to happen. And if it does still happen, you turn to God to help you work it out.

    You said: Consequences on abortion:
    Sexual freedom mean less abortions, because people are well informed about their own body and the body of the other sex, and they buy condoms.
    At least, all the statistics tell us that.

    Hors, again, this line of thinking is justifying one wrong to correct / avoid another. It’s an excuse to not have to learn / use self control. Have you heard of this saying: “two wrongs don’t make a right”.

    There are a million examples of why this line of thinking is erroneous but I can’t think of any right now…

    maybe, euthanasia for the elderly so that there are less murder/suicides of elderly couples? Not a great example but You get the idea I hope.

    I said: ““A departure from God really”

    You said: Oh yeah?
    When the Christian Americans will put the need for a universal health protection at a higher priority than opposing abortion, then they will be allowed to talk about *Straying from the True Stem Of God*
    When they will fight gun-freaks more ardently than stem cells scientists, then they will be allowed to deplorate our supposed moral decline.
    When they will defend loudlier the Earth that God gaves us, than people who refuse to heal their childs because *only God can do so*, then they will have the legitimacy to talk about moral issues.

    You are never going to convince me that killing a fully developed fetus FOR WHATEVER REASON is not worse than lack of universal health care or anything else. Do you really want to get into that again?

    Do we have faults over here? Yes. But there are thresholds set by God according to the Bible and Europe is ahead of us in crossing them.

    Like

  101. Princessxxx said

    OH JESUS KAY, Look up there at dorian traffic whoring for you.
    such a blessing.

    Like

  102. Hors Service said

    “There is really no sense in arguing this point… sweets are not good for us. Just because it may not “harm” us in small doses (which can only be an opinion really) that still doesn’t change the fact that it is NOT good for us.”

    And everything concerning the sweet issues. It’s really out of matter, and I feel like we would need a whole other page.
    But I will just advise you to ask your nearest nutritionist.
    There’s sugar in bananas! How terrible!

    Just to say that I’ve been educated to eat healthy. And therefore, I’m not fat nor thin, and I eat sweets from times to times. I’m not addicted. There’s sometimes months between two sweets. I use what God gave us, it’s called self-control, like you said.

    It’s true that compulsive eating could be a consequence of emotional disorder, but it’s today not the majority. The major part of the obese children are just used to eat french fries and junk food with too much sugar or too much salt in it.
    Too lazy to get on the net and find the info.


    Hors, you’re doing some twisting of words here…

    Sloth is not the same as resting.

    Pride: yes, there is good pride and sinful pride.

    Glutony is not eating it’s overeating.

    Greed is putting money (really yourself) before everything else. Thrifty is hopefully for the sake of the wellfare of the family (as one example).

    Wrath is “vindictive” anger.

    Envy is having bitterness towards others who have what you don’t. It’s not having “high expectations for ourselves”.

    And lust is not the same as “sex”. Lust can just be in the mind and it is still sinful.”

    It’s exactly my point! Good, we do agree sometimes. All those sins are just twisted virtues. Virtues pushed too far.
    It’s exactly the same for lust: it’s the abuse of sex, a twisted sexuality, perveted relationships that ruins the soul.
    Sex from times to times is good.

    “And it’s not “minimum sex” it’s no sex outside of marriage.”

    So, there’s a difference between the day before marriage and the day after? God gave His benediction, so you can have sex now? Sex is an union between a man and a woman, I don’t see why God has to be involved in it. He’s not involved in talking, touching, kissing, why would He have anything to do with a penis penetrating a vagina, as long as nobody’s feelings are hurt?

    You said:
    “I said: “Some religions use sex as a religious ritual, as a prayer.
    Even some Christians believe sex before marriage isn’t agaisnt God’s Rule, etc…
    This interpretation is YOURS, and even if widely spread in the USA, you shouldn’t say it’s GOD’S RULE.
    Who are you to say it is?
    The Bible is way too vague to assert this.”

    I see it a different way… YOU are the one who is misinterpreting the Bible.”

    And I see it a different way. It’s called “diverging views”.
    And what about all those other religions where sex is a ritual? Like tantrism, for example. Oh, sorry, I forgot that you don’t want to learn anything that could disturb you from God.

    “There are many CLEARLY defined sexual sins described in the Bible.”

    Sins like homosexuality, talking to women during their menstruation, or having a bad haircut.
    Maybe one should interprate a bit? What did Jesus, according to the apostles, said against sex outside marriage, in fact?

    “And the ultimate meaning, God’s will, IS presented.”

    But the ultimate meaning is quite well hidden, and at the same time obvious. It’s what I’m feeling about the “ultimate meaning”. What I also feel is that no sex before marriage is not included in the “ultimate meaning”.

    “The Lord dwells in us therefore we should not defile your bodies.”

    I’m not defiling my body, I’m sharing love with people I care for. The Lord must be very happy with me making happy people around me. I definitely should have sex more often, so I could get a better place in heaven.

    “Your argument is similar to the one I’ve heard about abortion… that Jesus never “said” abortion was a sin. (You know, I don’t even know if he ever actually “said” killing is a sin either.. so I guess it’s okay then?)”

    I’ve never said that if Jesus said nothing against abortion, the Bible couldn’t be against it in the spirit of the Bible. I’ve already said that one should interpretate the Bible.

    “Anyway.. this argument is just another excuse… a “technicality”. It’s people who don’t know how to be honest with themselves and don’t want to acknowledge the truth.”

    I like how you’re calling “sex outside marriage is bad” a truth. With truths like that, I have no choice but to be dishonest.

    ““My” interpretation is the widely accepted fundamentalist interpretation and it makes the most sense to me.”

    I already explained in “A Debate Page” what I thought about fundamentalism in general and yours in particular.

    “I’ve challenged everyone here to reason otherwise and no one has accepted my challenge to date. Except you but I don’t feel that you’ve out reasoned me so far. If you do feel that you have, please point it out to me…”

    I’ve pointed exceptions to your “no abortions at all” rule. Of course, it’s only exceptions, but for their sake, I think that the abortion possibility should be open.
    And while having less sexual hypocrisy than the common american society, we have fewer unwanted pregnancies.

    “Bottom line on this sex issue… sex and love are meant to go together. If they are not then it is no different than what animals do.”

    I totally agree with that. I always only make love to people I do have feelings for, if it isn’t love, at least a strong friendship.
    And marriage doesn’t equals love. It the best of cases, husband and wife are in love. You can have love without marriage (I would say that it’s prior to marriage: you shouldn’t marry people you don’t love), and marriage without love.

    “Sex outside of marriage, with someone we don’t love, will be harmful to both people emotionally and possibly physically as well.”

    No, it’s wrong. Only if it’s done bad. And one could perfectly have sex with someone one loves outside marriage. It’s what I do usually.

    “If we could remove emotions, then emotionally it may not be harmful but as I stated earlier, you cannot remove emotions. “Talking it out” does not remove emotions.”

    Hopefully! I don’t want to have sex without emotions, it’s useless.*Talking it out* clears the bad emotions, so it’s very important.

    “You may not be aware of the damage to the other person or yourself but it is there. Everytime you have sex with someone you are giving a little bit of yourself away. When you do find the person that is your true soul mate, you will have less to give her. It will make you sad.”

    So, love is something rationed? I have, like, a definite amount of love, that I should use with caution?
    Love isn’t like that. The more love you give, the more you get. Having sex, in a clear, open, pure way, with feelings, opens your heart, so that you could give even more love. When I will meet my true soul mate, I will know how to love her, how to avoid hurting her, how to confort her, how to make her happy. It’s what has happened with all my previous girlfriends. Even if the break ups were sad, and sometimes angry, it always left space for the next love.
    Love feeds on love, hate feeds on hate.

    “But again, you may not be consciously aware of it but it will be in both of your mind and hers. That knowledge will weaken your relationship.”

    From the relationships that I had, it’s the contrary that happened. Having a bit of experience reassures them. They’re less frigthened.
    Not too much, of course, because then your love doesn’t mean anything. But how can you say “I love you” correctly to someone if you’ve never loved before?

    You said:
    “You are saying that a man cannot control his urges? We wouldn’t have enough jails to house everyone if that were the case. That’s another weak excuse. You can get into a lot of trouble by extending that line of thought into other areas of life.”

    No, I’m not. A human can and has to control himself, it’s what makes us human: both animals and divine. That’s why we make love with feelings, just because it’s good to be together, not like animals, who do it only for reproduction.

    “Okay Hors, I’m wrong this time… so I’ll change the word “always” to “most of the time”. Now I am REALLY right :)”

    So, because the majority doesn’t know how to handle a relationship, one should abstain?
    And what statistics, what polls, what reference do you have on that? I’m curious to know.

    Sexual freedom made a mental disease disappear, which is quite enough to me to accept sexual freedom.

    “You DON’T know how she feels… she may say she is fine with it but odds are either she isn’t or you aren’t.”

    What odds?
    Of course I’m not in her head, but I feel that, after our multiple open-heart conversations, that she is fine with the situation.
    And I think I am because she had once a boyfriend during a moment, and I had no problems with stopping to make love.

    “Why did you separate?”

    Sorry, I wasn’t clear enough: we never dated, nor did we loved each other. We’re friends with improvement since the beginning. And it felt rather natural to do so. Do you want the full explanation of how this happened? It might involve sex, I fear.

    “Did you both become board with each other? I don’t see any love and caring in that.”

    I’m sorry, I didn’t understand. Could you please reformulate the sentence?

    “How can you really “love and care” about someone and then be okay with separating?”

    It’s difficult, I grant you. It’s not easy to break a story and build a new friendship on it. But it’s a thing that, as they grow adult, humans are learning to do.
    It hurts. But sometimes, it hurts even more to stay together.

    “Did one of you become interested in someone else? If so, the other one is hurt guaranteed.”

    Do you mean that was the reason for a break up? It in fact never occured to me. It was always break ups because of no more love.
    But now some of my exes does have new boyfriends, and as long as I don’t love them anymore, that doesn’t hurt me. In fact, I’m pretty happy for them.
    Yes, it requires work on oneself, open-heart discussions, and fairness. But the price is worth it.

    “Again, you may not be aware but the reality is our emotions make it impossible to not be hurt.”

    Of course. But being hurt, making mistakes is part of being a responsible human. If you’re always protected, you stay a children all your life.

    “You are in denial if you think otherwise. Just the idea that another person can let you go hurts. Again, you may present exceptions but that is not the rule.”

    And the idea that you’ve got him/her trapped doesn’t hurts?
    Are we married to God? No. But He still expects us to love Him. And to love him correctly, we should be free to not love Him. I thought that was your argument?
    Likewise, for another person to love us, this person should be free to leave.
    To me, marriage is the definitive sign of trust and love to your partner, you show that your feelings are strong enough to spend the rest of your life with him/her. It shouldn’t be the opening, but the finale.

    Of course when a person you love leaves you it hurts. But it has little to do with sex. As I’ve said previously, sex is usually a good souvenir of the relationship.
    That’s why I refuse to have sex with people that could be attached to me, if I can’t answer to their feelings.

    “If you follow the guide that God has given us, these things are much less likely to happen.”

    I didn’t find any practical guide about choosing the right man/woman in the Bible, but I’m sure you could find it for me.

    “And if it does still happen, you turn to God to help you work it out.”

    Which is why we get so much beaten wifes who don’t want to quit their husband because it’s against religion. God help those who help themselves.

    “Hors, again, this line of thinking is justifying one wrong to correct / avoid another. It’s an excuse to not have to learn / use self control. Have you heard of this saying: “two wrongs don’t make a right”.”

    I’m using self-control, but it seems to have different meanings to us.
    It depends on what you want: more foetuses in the gutter or more heartbroken people. One of the two choices heals, not the other.

    “maybe, euthanasia for the elderly so that there are less murder/suicides of elderly couples? Not a great example but You get the idea I hope.”

    I agree that two wrongs don’t make a right. But here, it’s a right diminuting a wrong.
    Have you heard of the expression “The better is the enemy of the good”?

    Other example: *the Prohibition. Forbidding alcohol only served the mafia interests. Authorising the consumption of alcohol is bad, as well as drinking it, but it’s still the best solution.
    *Distributing free clean syringes to drug addicts. It reduced the rate of transmission of sever illnesses.
    *It’s like distributing free condoms, which reduces the rate of unwanted pregnancies.

    If you don’t want to have sex, and think it’s a sin, very well, nobody is forcing you to have sex, but let the people have free sex lives, because it’s for the best. And it’s not harming you nor anybody if it’s universally done well.

    You said:
    “I said: ““A departure from God really”

    You said: Oh yeah?
    When the Christian Americans will put the need for a universal health protection at a higher priority than opposing abortion, then they will be allowed to talk about *Straying from the True Stem Of God*
    When they will fight gun-freaks more ardently than stem cells scientists, then they will be allowed to deplorate our supposed moral decline.
    When they will defend loudlier the Earth that God gaves us, than people who refuse to heal their childs because *only God can do so*, then they will have the legitimacy to talk about moral issues.

    You are never going to convince me that killing a fully developed fetus FOR WHATEVER REASON is not worse than lack of universal health care or anything else. Do you really want to get into that again?”

    Oh yes I want, it’s even why I post on this topic in fact.
    I don’t talk about killing a fully developed fetus, only kill those who cannot survive outside the woman’s womb. I’m asking to give a reasonable time to abort. I’m kind of moderated, and I think there should be a compromise between the rights of the mother and those of the being-to-be inside her.
    And YES, i think it’s morally WORSE. Health care or gun control is dealing with REAL LIVING people whereas abortion is dealing with not-yet people.

    You said:
    “Do we have faults over here? Yes. But there are thresholds set by God according to the Bible and Europe is ahead of us in crossing them.”

    France has a lower time limit for abortion than America.
    America is well ahead in the rate of homicides.
    What exactly other moral border did we crossed?

    Just so that you know, France has one of the highest rate of atheists in the whole industrialised world.
    At least something in which we can be ahead of the USA!^^

    Like

  103. kay~ms said

    Hors, passing out condoms is not the answer to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Passing out condoms just tells kids to go ahead and freely have sex, and at what age do you start passing out these condoms anyway? 15? 14? Then what about the 13, 12, 11, 10 year olds? And what happens when they want to have sex but no one is there to accommodate them with a condom? They’re going to have sex anyway. And the younger they are the more careless they are going to be. God gives us these rules for a reason… to protect us. Eliminating the moral “restraints” isn’t the answer to social problems. New problems will just develope.

    This particular debate started when I made that very point. That it is better for us when we follow God’s will. You got us sidetracked by saying that you don’t live by His rules and you are doing just fine. Congradulations to you Hors… really, if anyone isn’t going to follow God’s will, probably the best way to go about it (in this particular situation) is just as you are doing. It seems that you are considerate of the other’s feelings and that you are also responsible. But that was not the point. MOST people are not like you. Most people have sex for one simple reason.. and it has nothing to do with love. And they don’t give it a second thought. And throwing condoms at kids just tells them to not take it seriously, “just be careful to not get pregnant or get a disease.” Having morals protects us. This is a fact. go ahead and argue this, I know you will, but if your argument is not about the majority (not the minority, you) then I’m just going to direct you back here.

    Abortion… you are “against” late term abortions? They happen over there right? Do you speak out against them? No? Because “these are ‘rare’ exceptions”. There are exceptions to when it is ok to stick a needle into a babies heart to stop it from beating? Can you tell those reasons to me again? I, myself cannot think of one reason that validates that action.

    And to respond to a point on the other post…

    I said: “Yes, this is sad but if you want to get into that again, Christians believe the WORST of the two choices is to take a person’s entire life. And that doesn’t translate into not having sympathy for the 9 yo child. And I’ll just throw one of your favorite arguments back at you… “but this is a very rare situation” so liberal translation.. it should be acceptable.”

    You said: “This was a case of choice between abortion and everyone dies, even the child.
    It was acceptable to blame the girl or to abort?
    Yes, it should be acceptable. See? There’s exceptions for everything. It was exactly what I call an example.
    Glenn Beck is making up, which is different.”

    I dont’ completely understand what you are saying here… my point was that if you accept “rare” ecceptions when a full term baby has to be aborted then you should also understand the argument of a rare unfortunate instance where a 9 yo has to complete a pregnancy. In this case, if the girl is certain to die if she endures a pregnancy then of course it needs to be addressed differently. The “bad” Christian conservatives do not want a little girl to die any more than the unborn child. (believe it or not)

    But this is the part that really gets me… thank you for bringing up another liberal ignorance that I can address.

    You said: “It was acceptable to blame the girl or to abort?”

    WHAT??? WHAT??? Who is blaming the girl??? Your statement boggles my mind! Are you saying that to force a person to not kill a baby inside them is for the purpose of inflicting “due” punishment? That that is what it is all about? Christian conservatives are just into causing others grief and hardship?
    Nothing irritates me more than the person who says..” I’m against abortion UNLESS the woman was raped….the woman who gets pregnant out of a lack of self control must take her “punishment”. It’s not about that! It’s about another’s life. The woman who was raped and then gets pregnant is an extreme tragedy but that does not justify inflicting another tragedy on yet another human being! If I haven’t explained this right, or you are not getting it, please let me know and I’ll try to explain it better, because this is what pro lifers stand for. NOT forcing someone to “take their punishment”.

    If both lives are at risk, like I said, it needs to be dealt with on an individual basis with the idea being to do as much as possible to keep both alive.

    What Pro lifers really have a problem with is, for example, a woman who suddenly decides that she doesn’t want to follow thru with her pregnancy because she can’t emotionally handle it.. and she LEGALLY terminates a fully developed fetus! You’ll probably say that you don’t like that either… BUT the difference is that you are willing to let it happen.. pro lifers are not.

    You said: “It’s exactly my point! Good, we do agree sometimes. All those sins are just twisted virtues. Virtues pushed too far.”

    I think/ thought your point was that there really is no such thing as sin, which I think you had stated again since then. Is that what you are saying?

    That is yet ANOTHER erroneous liberal belief. I really dont’ think we’re aggreeing here.

    You said: “Even some Christians believe sex before marriage isn’t agaisnt God’s Rule, etc…
    This interpretation is YOURS, and even if widely spread in the USA, you shouldn’t say it’s GOD’S RULE.
    Who are you to say it is?
    The Bible is way too vague to assert this.”

    I AM saying it is God’s will and I’m using the Bible as my guide. I am not telling you to believe it and please don’t tell me not to believe it! And the Bible IS NOT “too vague” to assert this.. I strongly disagree.

    You said: “I’ve never said that if Jesus said nothing against abortion, the Bible couldn’t be against it in the spirit of the Bible. I’ve already said that one should interpretate the Bible.”

    Hors.. I never said that you said that if Jesus said nothing against abortion, the Bible couldn’t be against it. I compared it to your excuse / belief that the Bible is interpretted differently by different people so the incident / issue may not be a sin to some. Just as someone says “well the Bible didn’t SAY it specifically, so it isn’t a sin. Either one / both are an excuse. Like I said, the Bible is clear about sin. There is no way to misinterpret it. The Bible doesn’t specifically address abortion but it does CLEARLY say “thou shalt not kill”. Injecting a poison into a beating heart to make it stop is killing. That IS a scientific fact.

    I said: “Did you both become board with each other? I don’t see any love and caring in that.”

    You said: “I’m sorry, I didn’t understand. Could you please reformulate the sentence?”

    That made me laugh… I’m sorry, I mispelled “board”.. it’s supposed to be “bored”. I was imagining what kind of euphemisms must have been going thru your head…

    And after reading the first definition in the free dictionary just now ( I wanted to be sure to spell it right this time).. I thought I might put the correct definition here (#2).. incase you looked it up and read #1 ( the first one) which might have made it even worse!

    bore 2 (bôr, br)
    tr.v. bored, bor·ing, bores
    To make weary by being dull, repetitive, or tedious: The movie bored us.

    And lastly (for now)… a banana has fiber and vitamins… candy only has sugar and artificial flavoring… no benefits… only bad bad stuff :o(

    btw… I can’t wait for our fruit debate to heat up! :o)

    Like

  104. kay~ms said

    I just posted a comment.. it’s awaiting moderation…who’s going to aprove it??

    Like

  105. nannette said

    Every woman that has gotten an obortion should be thrown in jail and should be treated like animals, it’s a murder that they are committing. It doesn’t matter what the situation is, there’s always the option of giving them up for adoption if they don’t want the child..who do these women think they are, who are they to take a child’s life away only God can.

    Like

  106. nannette said

    I meant abortion not obortion.

    Like

  107. Hors Service said

    “treated like animals”. What a nice and so very christian attitude. A loving, forgiving and definitely warm feeling, warm in the “get me a box of matches and a lot of wood” way.

    I’m disappointed that no one can approve your comment yet, Kay. I shout YOU’RE APPROVED out loud, but it doesn’t seem to have any effect.^^ I thought you were an admin? Can’t you approve yourself?

    Like

  108. kay~ms said

    Hi Hors… I used to be able to but I was recently demoted. Anyway.. I see that someone approved it. And thanks for being such a nice diplomat on the other post. P does get in his / her moods sometimes and I do acknowledge that I was being very B*** which really, just means that a woman is speaking her mind and some people don’t like that.

    Like

  109. Hey Kay, sorry to make you wait so long… Again I have a life aside from the blog, and while I appreciate debating I just can’t carry out so much great debates at the same time, remember that my native language is not english. It’s quickly exhausting for me.

    You said:
    “Hors, passing out condoms is not the answer to the problem of unwanted pregnancy.”

    It is. When they use condoms, they don’t have unwanted babies. With a 99,99% luck.
    Or they could practice oral sex! Or mutual masturbation! There is a lot of methods to have sex, and no babies involved.

    “Passing out condoms just tells kids to go ahead and freely have sex,”

    No, it’s not. Does passing out clean syringes to toxicos tells them to go ahead and freely have sex?

    And sex does much less damage than heroïn, as previously explained.

    “and at what age do you start passing out these condoms anyway? 15? 14? Then what about the 13, 12, 11, 10 year olds?”

    Why not? But I don’t think the society is going to have such early sex: if they’re correctly educated, the kids will know when and how to begin. If the body isn’t ready, there’s no use in trying to have sex.
    And if you remember well, at 11 years old you were playing doctor^^ I have very good rememberances of this times, feeling like we were doing something forbidden…

    “And what happens when they want to have sex but no one is there to accommodate them with a condom? They’re going to have sex anyway.”

    No, because they will know that they could wait just some hours and still have protected sex. I’m not saying that we should have no self-control.

    “And the younger they are the more careless they are going to be.”

    That’s why we have to teach them early, because if we don’t do it porn is going to do it for us.

    “God gives us these rules for a reason… to protect us.”

    God also said that homosexuals should be stoned to death, that noone was allowed to speak to menstruating women, etc…
    And again, these are YOUR rules. A lot of religions and cultures have interesting other sexual tradition:
    Like this tribe I can’t remember the name, which has big houses for the youngs, and there they live in community, learning the tasks usefull for the tribe, and being initiated to sex: the young boys (since 11, as I remember it) by older girls, and young girls by older boys.
    I think they also avoid penetration to prevent the birth of childs.
    No trauma.

    “Eliminating the moral “restraints” isn’t the answer to social problems. New problems will just develope.”

    What problems exactly? Sexual freedom has already solved the problem of hysteria. Good point, isn’t it?

    “This particular debate started when I made that very point. That it is better for us when we follow God’s will.”

    The problem is to understand correctly God’s Will. And for this, one could only use his own heart, his own reason, and the debate.
    And, does God or Jesus says something against protected sex?
    against abortion?
    Until you come up with a Scripture confirming your points, I will then assert that it is your own (and fundamentalist) interpretation.
    I’m not of this type who says that if Jesus didn’t say it was wrong, then it’s OK, though. I believe the Bible is a reference point, that could be interpretated to suits every situation.

    Therefore, as it is your interpretation, I feel that you shouldn’t be allowed to impose it on other people.

    “You got us sidetracked by saying that you don’t live by His rules and you are doing just fine.”

    I think that I live by His rules. It just happens that His and Mines are the same. Because I’ve been thaught His Rules, probably. But then I thought about them, and concluded that they were good ones.
    I just don’t need the God behind them anymore.

    I haven’t said that I’m doing fine, either. I’m reasonnably happy, but I’ve got my share of regrets. And I wouldn’t exchange them for a false happiness.

    “Congradulations to you Hors… really, if anyone isn’t going to follow God’s will, probably the best way to go about it (in this particular situation) is just as you are doing.”

    It seems that, ever way, I will always end up not following one or the others Gods’s wills, and, according to all those worlwide integrists, in Hell. I try to take the best of it.

    “It seems that you are considerate of the other’s feelings and that you are also responsible. But that was not the point. MOST people are not like you. Most people have sex for one simple reason.. and it has nothing to do with love. And they don’t give it a second thought.”

    Like i don’t blame Christianity for the faults of fundamentalists, don’t blame Having sex for the lust persons^^

    “And throwing condoms at kids just tells them to not take it seriously, “just be careful to not get pregnant or get a disease.””

    That’s why you have to educate them. It’s what Sex Ed is all about.

    “Having morals protects us. This is a fact. go ahead and argue this, I know you will, but if your argument is not about the majority (not the minority, you) then I’m just going to direct you back here.”

    Yep. I agree with you. And I include *having responsible sex* in my morale. And strangely, I’m not the only one which acts like that here, and it works. The statistics shows that pre-marital sex is very widespread, and strangely, people are more or less as happy than 50 years ago.
    Just less unwanted pregnancies, deaths consequent to backstreet abortions, girls rejected from their family because they weren’t virgin until the mariage…

    “Abortion… you are “against” late term abortions? They happen over there right? Do you speak out against them? No? Because “these are ‘rare’ exceptions”.”

    I’m not sure I understand fully what you mean, but I’m against late term abortion, I think that it’s too much.
    I’m all for a compromise: I think that the mother should have a reasonable delay to think about it, and the foetus a chance to live.
    I find the delay that the law gives at the moment is quite good.

    You said:
    “There are exceptions to when it is ok to stick a needle into a babies heart to stop it from beating? Can you tell those reasons to me again? I, myself cannot think of one reason that validates that action.”

    And then:
    “I dont’ completely understand what you are saying here… my point was that if you accept “rare” ecceptions when a full term baby has to be aborted then you should also understand the argument of a rare unfortunate instance where a 9 yo has to complete a pregnancy. In this case, if the girl is certain to die if she endures a pregnancy then of course it needs to be addressed differently. The “bad” Christian conservatives do not want a little girl to die any more than the unborn child. (believe it or not)”

    I’ve never said that I accept “rare” exceptions for late term abortions. In fact, i can’t think of any situations like that. I you find a moral dilemma involving late term abortion, I would be pleased to discuss the term.

    In the case of a 9 yo girl raped by her stepfather, pregnant of twins, and it was a case of everybody die or the foetuses die, YES, I think it’s ok to stop their heart.
    You see? An exception!
    And it’s not always done like that. I don’t know your cultural way of aborting, but here it’s done differently.

    “WHAT??? WHAT??? Who is blaming the girl???”

    The catholic church, by excommunicating the girl and the two doctors who carried out the abortion.

    “If both lives are at risk, like I said, it needs to be dealt with on an individual basis with the idea being to do as much as possible to keep both alive.”

    /. Welcome on the grey line. It must be a nice change of scenery, coming from your black and white world.
    I think that it is also morally acceptable to abort foetuses until the limit that they can live alone outside the female womb. I place here the line between non-being/being. Free to you to refuse to abort before this term.

    “What Pro lifers really have a problem with is, for example, a woman who suddenly decides that she doesn’t want to follow thru with her pregnancy because she can’t emotionally handle it..
    and she LEGALLY terminates a fully developed fetus!”

    *fully developed* is abusive. If it was fully developed, it would be a baby.

    “You’ll probably say that you don’t like that either… BUT the difference is that you are willing to let it happen.. pro lifers are not.”

    The difference is that I’m not in her shoes to judge of these matters. So I grant her a reasonable delay.

    “I think/ thought your point was that there really is no such thing as sin, which I think you had stated again since then. Is that what you are saying?”

    No, there ARE sins! Of course! What I meant it’s that they are twisted virtues. I think the whole point in being human is sticking to the virtues and avoiding the sins. Living in the grey domain, where we have to make choices.

    “That is yet ANOTHER erroneous liberal belief.”

    If you ask the common *liberals* you accuse on this blog, I think that they will agree that there are sins (as morally reprehensible behaviors). Even Princess.

    “I AM saying it is God’s will and I’m using the Bible as my guide. I am not telling you to believe it and please don’t tell me not to believe it!”

    I’m not telling you to believe it, I’m debating with you.
    And I’m telling you to accept that others have a different view on the subject.

    “And the Bible IS NOT “too vague” to assert this.. I strongly disagree.”

    Well, a lot of Old Testament Heroes had quite a full and funny sexual life (read your Bible), and for the New Testament… Well, give me your references.

    “Hors.. I never said that you said that if Jesus said nothing against abortion, the Bible couldn’t be against it. I compared it to your excuse / belief that the Bible is interpretted differently by different people so the incident / issue may not be a sin to some.”

    Well, I don’t really see the point… Maybe lost in translation? I do still stand by *The Bible is interpretated differently by different people*, which is a fact, not my opinion…

    “Just as someone says “well the Bible didn’t SAY it specifically, so it isn’t a sin. Either one / both are an excuse. Like I said, the Bible is clear about sin. There is no way to misinterpret it.”

    So why does people keep on misinterpreting it?

    “The Bible doesn’t specifically address abortion but it does CLEARLY say “thou shalt not kill”. Injecting a poison into a beating heart to make it stop is killing. That IS a scientific fact.”

    So why do you have christians in the US army? They’re supposed to offer flowers to talibans?
    If someone comes at you armed, and your only option to make it alive is to kill him, won’t you kill him?
    And if we goes on with the thinking, then eating animal or non-dead things is a sin? To me, the foetus has not the status of “human being”. Just “human to come”.

    You said:
    “That made me laugh… I’m sorry, I mispelled “board”.. it’s supposed to be “bored”. I was imagining what kind of euphemisms must have been going thru your head…”

    😀 Exactly, I was looking for an american expression, involving perhaps tits^^

    “And lastly (for now)… a banana has fiber and vitamins… candy only has sugar and artificial flavoring… no benefits… only bad bad stuff 😮 (btw… I can’t wait for our fruit debate to heat up! 😮 )”

    Then, take chocolate in the place of candy if you abhore candy^^
    Sugar is immediate energy and the taste offer a relief if you’re having a difficult day.
    And the body is perfectly capable of dealing with a small quantity of toxins. In fact, did you know that being attacked regurlarly by not-too-agressive germs was good training for the body? Without any external attack, the body begins to react against nothing or his own organs (our own very good hygiene is therefore partly responsible for the increase of self-induced diseases and allergies^^).

    I like apples, but I prefer nuts. Nuts is really something that, when I begin, I can’t stop, and there’s nothing bad in a nut^^

    Like

  110. enginsnuh said

    She couldnt hear over the roar of energy to tell if she made a sound. They had both recognized Salins unique voice when hed spoken through his mindlink with Radin. It may mean nothing to you, but I must say that Im proud of you. They had fought about it too often for Eyrhaen not to know what he meant. Hands closed over her shoulders, distantly felt. So handsome, she thought, relatively sure that he wasnt listening. Im looking forward to seeing the spell myself. She, too, was watching, her cheek resting on the top of his head. Blue eyes stared at her from an expressionless face. What was that swelling feeling deep inside her chest? They wanted her to bleed? Dont expect me to like it, and dont expect me to let you tease me! She froze, lost in the icy heat of his gaze. Brevin licked the point of Tykirs ear. At least, not that she was aware of. Delight sparked in his eyes when she drew up to her knees. Even from a distance, the man was striking. She couldnt help her smile. Youd allow me to breed with another man? He growled, a pleasant rumble against her breasts.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: