A Different Kind of Blog

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

Don’t arm yourselves for the “War on Christmas”

Posted by 1minionsopinion on November 28, 2009

I delved into WORLDmag.com for ideas for this post and found an opinion piece by Warren Cole Smith about the ongoing “War on Christmas.” (This is a crosspost)

First of all, Jesus is most certainly not the reason for the orgiastic spending spree modern Christmas has become. I certainly think anyone should be able to say “Merry Christmas” if he or she wants to. But given what this holiday has become, there’s a part of me—a big part of me—that wants to keep the Jesus I worship as far away from this commercial debauchery as possible.

Secondly, there are the words themselves. “Christmas” is derived from “Christ’s Mass,” an expression first recorded in the 11th century. “Holiday” is a word derived from “holy day,” an expression that likely has an even more ancient, and no less religious, derivation. Indeed, the phrase “Merry Christmas” was unknown until the 16th century, and it connoted the idea of a Christmas that was—shall we say—festive. In other words, “Merry Christmas” may have been a medieval euphemism for “bottoms-up.”

And, he points out, the advertising they need to “Keep Christ in Christmas” costs money to make, and therefore costs money to buy. Just look at all the crap available via World Net Daily and that’s just bumper stickers.

What was once a quiet and solemn occasion to honor the birth of a baby has become completely commercialized and above and beyond everything the original holy Christian day had been set aside for.

The bottom line here is, well, the bottom line: The Christmas wars are a financial windfall for the organizations that whip up this frenzy. The Christmas wars have become, ironically, the ultimate commercialization of Christmas.

I’m not saying that there are times when we Christians shouldn’t stand up for our rights, but when we fire all our weapons in such a meaningless skirmish, we alienate potential allies, and we have no ammunition for the battles that matter.

Huge challenges face our culture and the Christian church: abortion, pornography, same-sex marriage. These are battles worth fighting, battles we must win, battles with too few warriors in the fight. And we’re wasting our time with “Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays”? Our priorities are badly out of whack.

Including all the priorities he just mentioned, as far as I’m concerned. This is totally off the topic of my post, but those are battles I hope they don’t win because the world needs to move beyond the biblical rules about marriage and sex that are ridiculously out of date and have no bearing on the reality of daily life for the rest of the population that doesn’t believe every word of that book. Secularism isn’t evil incarnate and it’s troublesome to see Christian groups trying to enforce rules that restrict everyone, just because their groups claim it’s “wrong.”

There is no good reason to ban gay marriage. It cannot wreck the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage unless one partner finally admits he or she is gay and seeks divorce. Just because it’s a “sin” in a Christian’s eye doesn’t mean it has to be illegal. Gambling and alcohol also lead to “sin,” do they not? It’s still legal to get drunk and lose money. Sins have no legal standing, no matter how much Christians might wish it so.

There is no good reason to say all abortion must be illegal. Better it all be legal and full of rules that must be followed to the letter and make the whole procedure above board and safe for any woman who feels the need to seek it out. There are good reasons to have this option available and perhaps women can be counseled if they have bad reasons. Rabbits, hares and coyotes have a far more sensible arrangement than we do, that actually reflects the ability of their environments to sustain their populations.

There is no good reason to be against the advertising and filming of sex, unless the battle is against stuff that involves children or sadistic violence against women. Sex is not unnatural nor should it be considered a sin. That kind of thinking is what likely leads to so many sexual hangups. What goes on between consenting adults is up to those adults, and those adults alone. I agree there is a lot of sexuality in advertising that kids will see, though. It is up to consumers to bully advertisers into changing their advertising methods. If enough people stand up to say enough is enough, maybe they’ll stop seducing people into buying a commercialized wet dream.

Which brings us back to commercialized Christmas, after all. Decide for yourself what the reason for the season is and live it as best you can.

It is completely unnecessary to insist others follow your lead. They might do so anyway, but at least the choice will be theirs.

51 Responses to “Don’t arm yourselves for the “War on Christmas””

  1. You should check out Gods Gays Obama at Jabobs ladder… http://jacobisrael71.wordpress.com

    Like

  2. dorian said

    hello jacob! will check out http://jacobisrael71.wordpress.com.

    Like

  3. Anonymous said

    1minion, no one is banning the union of two people, to let them live their lives as they choose. And no one should be denying them equal rights as a unionized couple like those in a marriage. They should have the same rights. What many don’t want is for the definition of marriage to be changed. Because is weakens the very thing that sustains our existence. It disrupts the concept of procreation which is necessary for our survival as a species.

    You are trying to take an issue that is valid and turn it into “Christian groups trying to enforce rules that restrict everyone, just because their groups claim it’s “wrong.”

    Christians are not trying to force people to live a certain way here. They don’t want the sanctity of marriage to be changed. One good reason is because if it can be changed once, who’s to say it can’t then be changed again and again? If a person wants to marry their dog, isn’t that their right? Who are we to tell them that they can’t marry who / what they love? What does that do to the sanctity of marriage? Turns it into a circus side show. Leave Marriage alone. What activists want here is to change the definition of marriage and FORCE their way onto society as just as normal as marriage between a man and a woman. And the basic fundamental (and non religious) reason why this shouldn’t be done is because it will weaken the very thing that sustains our existence. Girls will grow up not only trying to decide if their ideal marriage will consist of someone who is “tall dark and handsome” or “blond and blue eyed” but also man or woman. Many would never have even considered that third option before. And as I stated, it is not good for our survival as a species for this to occur. A gay couple should be granted the same rights as a married couple if they choose to enter into a union. But why does the definition of marriage have to be changed?

    You said: “There is no good reason to say all abortion must be illegal.” How can you say that?? Do you know that research shows that fetus’ feel pain when they are aborted? I would say that is a very good reason right there.

    You said: “There is no good reason to be against the advertising and filming of sex, unless the battle is against stuff that involves children or sadistic violence against women. Sex is not unnatural nor should it be considered a sin. ”

    But is it natural to turn it into a spectator “sport”? Do you think any one might regret, later in life, things like this that they participated in? (and please don’t blame it on “conditioning”). You say that “sex is not unnatural”… does that mean any and all kinds of sex? Is there a limit on the number of people participating? Or do all participants have to be people? Do you know that there are repercussions for taking part in these things? And filming it and advertising it is promoting it. Promoting harmful things … there is nothing wrong with that?

    Liberals want to remove barriers; they think they’re “bad”. If you analyze honestly, you will see that 99% of the time, it is for good reasons that these barriers exist.

    Like

  4. kay~ms said

    Anonymous was me.

    Like

  5. princessxxx said

    kay’s right,
    if gays are allowed to marry,
    then the next thing you know,
    people will be marrying turkeys instead of eating them on christmas day like baby jesus says.
    the whole world will turn upside down.

    Like

  6. 1minionsopinion said

    “What many don’t want is for the definition of marriage to be changed. Because is weakens the very thing that sustains our existence. It disrupts the concept of procreation which is necessary for our survival as a species.”

    You don’t have to be married to have kids.

    “Girls will grow up not only trying to decide if their ideal marriage will consist of someone who is “tall dark and handsome” or “blond and blue eyed” but also man or woman. Many would never have even considered that third option before.”

    If a girl is heterosexual she’ll pick a man. If she’s homosexual, she’ll pick a woman. If she’s bi (and some men and women say they are) then they’ll have more opportunities than the rest of us to find a partner and be happy with that partner. Nobody will choose to marry their dog unless they need medicating or therapy.

    (I read a very sad story about a Japanese boy in love with the cartoon figure on his pillow and takes her everywhere with him. He has no idea how to get a real girl so he’s putting all his love into an inanimate thing. And he’s not the only one. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-2DLove-t.html?pagewanted=all)

    I think homosexuals want to call it their official unions marriages because that’s what it feels like and that is what it should be called, with all the same rights granted to other married couples with regards to property, health care, etc. The whole idea of “sanctity” is dumb. Change the definition of what a marriage is. Marriage doesn’t have to be sacred. It does have to be legal, and should be legal and available for everyone.

    Regarding things that can’t talk and the pain they feel – did you know the SPCA existed long before anyone cared about the rights of children? There are valid reasons to have an abortion – would you want to carry your rapist’s child? What if carrying to term would be detrimental to your health? That doesn’t matter? What about a situation where some hospital employee has molested a comatose woman and gotten her pregnant?

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/05/doctor_on_trial_in_missed_pregnancy_of_raped_coma_patient/

    Like

  7. 1minionsopinion said

    —-
    Do you think any one might regret, later in life, things like this that they participated in? (and please don’t blame it on “conditioning”). You say that “sex is not unnatural”… does that mean any and all kinds of sex? Is there a limit on the number of people participating? Or do all participants have to be people? Do you know that there are repercussions for taking part in these things?
    —-

    When I said, “unless the battle is against stuff that involves children or sadistic violence against women” I could have added beastiality in there, too, I suppose. I can’t fathom why people would want to try that. Is that a fetish like the furries stuff or a perversion? There are a lot of weird things that get people off. Somewhere in the world a woman orgasms every time she sneezes, but I think there’s some medical explanation behind that case. Anal sex between two people is just another one of the many ways to have sex and enjoy the experience (assuming that’s what you like – I’ve never tried it).

    People are going to have regrets about a lot of things. Some of the things they’ll regret may be sexual experiences. Everything listed in the Kama Sutra is a natural sexual experience, or else it wouldn’t have been illustrated as a suggested position. That book is as old as the bible, as it happens.

    As far as repercussions, guilt is a possibility, especially when people feel they were pushed into these experiences without actually wanting them to happen, or when they know it’s going to hurt others if they find out about it. Regrets are likely, if what people hope they’ll get out of it doesn’t materialize, or if they later think what they did has made their lives worse than they would have been otherwise.

    Will some girls regret losing their virginity to some loser instead of the man of their dreams? I know I do. There will always be choices made in life that we’ll someday look back on, ask ourselves what we were thinking and wonder about the what-might-have-beens. My bigger regret is not getting more sex with that loser while I had the chance.

    Some people live for one night stands. I’ve never had one. I’d rather be with someone committed to being with me long term, even though that seems very unlikely right now.

    STDs are a risk but that’s the point of condom use. There’s possible pregnancy, but condoms, pills, and other contraceptive methods can stop that from happening, too.

    A lot of repercussions can be avoided if thought is put into the act ahead of time. If you really don’t want to have sex, don’t have it. If you want it, play it safe. If you want to wait for marriage, do so. If you want a different woman every night of the week, knock yourself out. You are the one who has to live with whatever decision is made, and you are the one who has to think about how it will affect everyone.

    Like

  8. 1minionsopinion said

    —“And filming it and advertising it is promoting it. Promoting harmful things … there is nothing wrong with that?”—

    Depends on what’s being filmed and who winds up seeing it. I’ve never sat through a whole porn film. I got as far as a scene where a guy… well, anyway, I felt like I needed to barf and left the room. My friends in university thought that was hilarious.

    Should kids watch porn? Maybe they should. Better they understand what sex is than have people all around them acting like it’s some big secret. They’re going to experiment in their own time anyway, so why not let them see what it’s like ahead of time? Why is sex such a taboo thing but nightly news shows dead people and their own games let them shoot any and all kinds of things into bloody oblivion?

    Should they be in as porno? Obviously not! We don’t want people looking at kids as sex objects and thinking sex with kids is okay. It’s not. That’s sick and twisted and perverted and illegal and justifiably so.

    That said, I completely believe that anything done by consenting adults to consenting adults should be permitted (so long as people aren’t being physically injured and scarred without their permission). I think it can also be filmed for other adults to watch and enjoy, or photographed for other adults to look at and get off on. Will I buy or watch it? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean others shouldn’t have the option if they want it. It’s none of my business what people like. If it’s legal, enjoy it. If it’s illegal (or legal but not legal in public areas like libraries), it’s only a matter of time until they get caught.

    Does pornography degrade women? Yes and no. If the women actually want to do this as their career, who am I to judge? I can almost admire their ability to be so bodily unrestricted. When I was a teenager, I had pretty boy pictures pulled out of Bop magazines and hung on my walls and had to undress in the dark so they wouldn’t see. If women really want to have sex for money and aren’t being pushed into that lifestyle by other (possibly illegal) forces, who am I to judge? Could I do it? Would I want to? No way on earth.

    I think if pornography degrades women, it’s because of the expectations it creates for men. I can’t compete with a sexually free woman as it is because I can barely look at myself without clothes on, let alone entice a man to look at and want me. Personally, I want to be loved for more than a body part and what that part can potentially do. Boys who grow up thinking women are only on the earth to please men are probably not going to treat the women in their lives very well when they aren’t pleased.

    That said, I wish women didn’t feel they have to strip their clothes off to get noticed. I wish talent and personality and brains counted for more than how much cellulite is on a butt or how big the new fake boobs are. But we’ve built a society where a good personality and skills aren’t necessarily what gets you hired and nobody seems inclined to change that. Women as a whole maybe could, but many women seem to like being eye candy for men and (un)dress accordingly.

    Which reminds me, I need to request more Ugly Betty from the library…

    Like

  9. kay~ms said

    “You don’t have to be married to have kids.”

    I am aware of that. Animals procreate and they don’t get married. Humans are different. We make choices about our lives. Someone may “decide” that they are gay, marry someone of the same sex and never procreate. (yes, I know that they can still procreate). But as I said earlier, the basis for human procreation is marriage that creates children and both (in their union) take care of their offspring. This is God’s intention / plan for us. Animals don’t need both “parents”. Humans do infinitely better when both parents are there to nuture them. Commitment (marriage) strenthens and sustains humankind. Sanctity of marriage isn’t “dumb”. It’s vitally important. Who is going to take marriage seriously when someone marries their turkey? What is going to keep a couple together when they have their first or fiftieth fight? Just get a divorce..”no big deal”. The divorce rate we have today has played a large role in weakening the importance of marriage… which helps lead people to incorrectly believe that “sanctity is dumb”. “Sanctity is dumb” is just another attempt by progressive liberals to tear down those “bad” barriers. And the result of tearing down this “barrier” will be more children growing up without both parents there to nuture them. And all you have to do is look at all of our full prisons to see one major repercussion of that.

    “If a girl is heterosexual she’ll pick a man. If she’s homosexual, she’ll pick a woman. If she’s bi (and some men and women say they are) then they’ll have more opportunities than the rest of us to find a partner and be happy with that partner.”

    That’s in a perfect world I quess. In real life people are confused and they aren’t always sure of what they want. And they do make wrong decisions all the time that are detramental to them. Teenagers are confused enough as it is without having to also be presented with the choice about their sexuality. There are some that have no doubt, but there are plenty of others who are full of doubt.

    “Marriage doesn’t have to be sacred. It does have to be legal, and should be legal and available for everyone.”

    Marriage has been sacred for thousands of years. It doesn’t have to be (and shouldn’t be) “de-sacredized” just to apease one group of people. Legal unions will/ should give couples all of the rights they are entitled to. It doesn’t have to be called marriage.

    I understand that gay couples “feel” married. And no one can stop them from saying that they are married in their legal union. Just please dont’ tear down or damage a fundamental structure to society just to further validate homosexuality. The validations can be made in other ways. This way is destructive to the whole of society.

    As to abortion you said:

    “Regarding things that can’t talk and the pain they feel – did you know the SPCA existed long before anyone cared about the rights of children? There are valid reasons to have an abortion – would you want to carry your rapist’s child? What if carrying to term would be detrimental to your health? That doesn’t matter? What about a situation where some hospital employee has molested a comatose woman and gotten her pregnant? ”

    I’m not sure what the SPCA and your statement has to do with the issue of the fact that fetus’ feel pain when they are aborted.

    What you described are good arguments for abortion but how can they outweigh causing pain and death to the innocent? Would you say the same if the baby was born? Is the difference that the unborn “can’t talk”? There are born people who can’t talk or understand anything… is it ok to kill them too? I mean look at the burden that they are causing others. I fail to see how killing an innocent person isn’t worse than any other alternitive. It is worse. A woman carrying a rapist’s child is for most a horrible situation for them to go thru. But the ulternitive you are promoting is that this woman kill her OWN child. Kill a person who is entitled to their life. Someone said that this person may grow up to be just like his father and therefore that is a good argument for killing him before birth. There are no good people who had horrible parents? Ask them if they would have preferred to be aborted.

    Like

  10. 1minionsopinion said

    SPCA was designed for the protection of animals back in 1824, long before anyone cared about rights of children, born or unborn. Animals also feel pain and can’t tell anyone. That was the point.

    “I am aware of that. Animals procreate and they don’t get married. Humans are different”

    No we’re not. Lots of humans have kids and aren’t married. We’re animals, too. Calling a union made legal by a contract a “marriage” was decided by societal pressures to determine ownership of property back when not only land and cattle were property, but women and any resulting children, too. Land and property titles would pass through the men of a family, not women.

    “In real life people are confused and they aren’t always sure of what they want. And they do make wrong decisions all the time that are detramental to them.”

    Isn’t that partly because people try to tell gay kids that homosexuality is a sin therefore they don’t grow up feeling it’s not natural and somehow to want a same sex partner? And if people don’t know what they want in a heterosexual partnership, isn’t that the fault of a society that inhibits the discussion of sex as honestly as possible?

    If people are shamed into thinking what they want from their partner is somehow sinful and immoral, then they aren’t going to have a satisfactory sexual experience or be satisfied by what that partner is willing to do. They may stay with a person who doesn’t please them, but might still seek out someone who can on the sly. That doesn’t do anyone any good. A need is filled, but three (or more) people may get hurt in the process. If everyone was honest and up front about expectations and limits in the first place, a lot of hurt could be avoided.

    Like

  11. kay~ms said

    If that is true that people cared about animals more than children, that is a shame. I’m still not getting your argument… that since animals can’t talk and they feel pain that it is then ok for unborn humans to be treated the same? Your point has no bearing on the issue. It doesn’t change the fact that fetus’ feel pain when they are aborted and that it is wrong to inflict horrible pain and suffering on the innocent because of the inconveinience of the born human otherwise.

    And now I have to explain how humans and animals are different? Ok.. animals are guided by instinct. Humans are guided by reason and morals. I watched a show last night about a man who killed a young girl for the fun of it. He was described as an animal in a human body and rightly so. He was not guided by reason, morals or restraints.

    “Calling a union made legal by a contract a “marriage” was decided by societal pressures to determine ownership of property back when not only land and cattle were property, but women and any resulting children, too. Land and property titles would pass through the men of a family, not women.”

    Can I ask where you got this information from? Because that certainly isn’t what the Bible says, it talks clearly about marriage and the purpose for it. And the Bible is a pretty old book. It seems to me that marriage began as a religious practice. When it became for the purpose of legality is might have been called “marriage” because that is what a union of two people was called… but logically, it is a legal union. Why would people who do not believe in God care about calling a legal union marriage if it’s a religious practice?

    You said: “Isn’t that partly because people try to tell gay kids that homosexuality is a sin therefore they don’t grow up feeling it’s not natural and somehow to want a same sex partner? ”

    I acknowledge your point here but I still don’t think the definition of marriage should be changed. This issue is a gray area for me but I feel that some things shouldn’t be sacrificed in order to apease a certain group of people. The idea of marriage and procreation is a fundamental building block of human existence and survival. And it has always been the source of true happiness for the majority of humankind. Will changing the definition affect that? I really don’t know. But it is so important that I don’t think we should alter it in such a basic way. And as I pointed out earlier… soon, someone will come along and say that they want to marry two people… how can we say no when we have already made one significant change? What would be the argument? And if someone (crazy or not) wanted to marry their dog, toaster or imaginary friend?… what would be the basis for denying them their right to marry whoever or whatever they wanted? We can’t prove that their imaginary friend doesnt exist. And that they are not in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. They say this hasn’t happened in other parts of the world yet.. but give it time. We already endanger ourselves and our country in order to protect the rights of others. Hasan is a perfect example. So how can we stand in the way of someone who wants to marry their turkey or toaster? It’s their right to marry who or what they choose. This is where liberal beliefs are going to take us. Clearly lines have to be drawn. But “barriers” are “bad” according to liberals.
    I predict we will all be blown up by terrorists right here on our own soil just as soon as they obtain nuclear weapons. All because we don’t want to violate their civil “rights”. But what can you do? Everyone’s rights must be protected at all costs… except for the unborn ofcourse.

    Like

  12. 1minionsopinion said

    “The idea of marriage and procreation is a fundamental building block of human existence and survival. ”

    Marriage isn’t vital to the existence of humanity. Baby making is, and that doesn’t require a marriage to have happen. It is not illegal to have kids out of wedlock and it’s not going to be. It’s no longer a shameful sinful thing. It’s common. It maybe is a bad idea if you can’t afford to keep the kids fed and housed and clothed, but it’s not illegal to sleep with whoever you want and have however many kids as you can pop out of your uterus.

    “Marriage” just makes it all official, but it isn’t necessary.

    “And if someone (crazy or not) wanted to marry their dog, toaster or imaginary friend?… what would be the basis for denying them their right to marry whoever or whatever they wanted? We can’t prove that their imaginary friend doesnt exist. And that they are not in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. They say this hasn’t happened in other parts of the world yet.. but give it time.”

    Actually, I’ve come across articles where girls are marrying frogs because it’s traditional in their culture to do so. I’ll find a link at lunch. Stupid work gets in the way of pointless debates…

    Like

  13. princessxxx said

    stupid work gets in the way of pointless debates..

    that is a great line, hahaha.

    are you a libra?

    Like

  14. 1minionsopinion said

    Frogs as promised:

    http://www.boingboing.net/2009/01/17/young-girls-married.html

    Like

  15. dorian said

    i have a cousin who married a frog. his name was jacques and he was from marseilles. thanks for the interesting story, minion. and for having the patience in engaging in pointless debate. we all had a go at it too.

    are you a gemini?

    Like

  16. Hors Service said

    I’ve no time to get in this extrememy interesting debate, but here’s a foreigner point of view:

    In french, “holidays” is traduced as “vacances”, which has no religious signification whatsoever. It just means “emptyness”, and comes from the same root as “vacancy”.

    “Christmas” is traduced as “Noël”, which means “the Birth”. During the centuries, it has been also a warcry, a happiness cry (like “Youpi!”), and other original significations.
    Just for the laugh, if we want to get down to the REAL, ORIGINAL signification of Christmas, then it’s the old roman pagan Calendes fest, which has been recuperated by the christian hierarchy to obliterate the old beliefs. And before, it was certainly a “Celebration of the Lights”, from celtic paganism. The tree is supposed to come from it. And so on, and so on.
    An old celebration really. Nice one. I like it. I even used to sing in the church at that occasion.

    We don’t have Thanksgiving, it doesn’t exist here. (Of course^^)
    But in Germany they have still the tradition of Saint Nicolas, from which the Santa Claus idea is derived. It’s a Santa Claus-like, he deals presents, but it’s near the 6 of december and it’s a religious figure.

    As is the Kristkindel, a mixed pagan-christian figure of Elsassic (I live in Strasbourg at the moment) tradition, who represent the Young Christ, usually by the way of a young woman. She has four candles on her head, and… Well it’s a long but nice story.

    Like

  17. kay~ms said

    This issue isn’t “pointless”. I’ve allready proven that. Marriage is an important and fundamental factor in the raising of offspring. It bonds parents, keeps them together so that both are there to nuture their children.

    You said: “Marriage isn’t vital to the existence of humanity. Baby making is, and that doesn’t require a marriage to have happen. It is not illegal to have kids out of wedlock and it’s not going to be. It’s no longer a shameful sinful thing. It’s common. ”

    And you know what else is common? Crowded prisons. You seem to be completely oblivious to the concept of the value of the family unit. That’s one of those “bad” barriers I guess. Who needs a family with both the mother and father… “that’s dumb”.

    Just as long as it’s not illegal..we can “pop out” as many kids as we can possibly have? Just because it’s not illegal that doesn’t mean it’s not wrong or bad for us. Cigarettes are legal. Abortion is legal… late term abortions where the child is barbarically murdered is legal!

    If the family unit breaks down society will more likely break down as well. Our prisons are just one example. Poping out as many kids as we want without the financial support of both parents will create more poverty… another reason.

    I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. Possibly liberal brainwashing that moral restrainst are “bad”. That’s “dumb” and this whole issue is proof of that. Take away moral restraints and things only get worse. The high divorce rate and crowded prisons prove that. Sex outside of marriage proves that… popping out kids without a father proves that. And the answer is not to kill the child instead. That is just yet another morally absent liberal “answer” to social problems.

    Like

  18. dorian said

    kay – kindly share/enlighten us then of the morally present answers to social problems. take a stab at it. what would be your perfect world? i’ll start it off for you: 1) no liberal thinking 2) no abortion ….3)

    Like

  19. kay~ms said

    Yes, no liberal thinking and no abortion would be a good start. As for abortion, how about instead of terminating a life choose the adoption route? It seems to me like the morally correct choice of the two.

    Other morally present answers… just follow the Bible and that will eliminate pretty much all social problems. How’s that?

    The sanctity of marriage is going down the drain because of liberal views, single families are on the rise because of liberal (anti Christian) views which leads to the need for more and more prisons to be built. Poverty is on the rise because of so many single parent families, and as usual liberals want to let government take care of the problem with finacial aid (more taxes) when all we have to do is get back to a morally sound foundation. This is a vicious cycle I’ve just explained… keep the family unit strong and all of these other problems will be aleviated. But, instead, we have liberals damaging society with their anti Christian views and it then has to be explain to them why the family unit is important.. why it is important to preserve the sanctity of marriage… how we ARE different from animals?? It’s so clear.. why do liberals refuse to see the problems with their ideology?

    Like

  20. 1minionsopinion said

    Princess guessed the equally pointless star sign correctly. Libra it is. I suppose I could bring up astrology at my skeptics group meeting tomorrow night. We’re talking superstition and so many people think a day of the week and an alignment make a difference..

    Like

  21. 1minionsopinion said

    “Yes, no liberal thinking and no abortion would be a good start. As for abortion, how about instead of terminating a life choose the adoption route? It seems to me like the morally correct choice of the two.”

    Okay, but how about nobody having new kids for a while and adopting and caring for the ones already born and not currently wanted? A lot of kids are going without decent parenting. I don’t necessarily mean doing like celebrities and collecting the whole set of kids from disadvantaged countries and then dragging them around like prizes instead of people.

    I just mean caring as a country about homeless kids, foster kids, kids who shouldn’t be lost in the cracks of a social system that’s not built to deal with so many of them. If more couples used contraceptives and opted out of in vitro fertilization procedures (that cost tens of thousands of dollars for each attempt)just because they waited too long or couldn’t get pregnant the usual way, then the kids existing now might get a chance at having a real family and a home.

    Like

  22. princessxxx said

    pointless stars. hahaha. i guessed libra because i’m one and i sense a similar libra view.

    hey kay, i know lots of kids from two christian parents, male and female, that have spent or are now spending time in prison ranging from drugs to theft to child molestation so that makes your christian two parents of opposite sex theory as a detriment to crime pointless.

    Like

  23. dorian said

    right on, princess! many good libra minds, it’s true.

    children brought up in a same sex household come out fine, from what i see living in san francisco. it’s usually the repressive “traditional”, hardcore religious households that have spawned some scared and confused individuals that have a hard time fitting in to society. so yes, there’s no point to the “morally sound” i.e. “fundamentalist religious practitioner” argument.

    how about better unwanted pregnancy prevention and yes to minion’s encouraging more adoption for those unwanted children here. instead of fighting over the unborn, take care of the little ones that are already here.

    the “sanctity of marriage”? that term is moot. what’s the divorce rate in our country?

    Like

  24. 1minionsopinion said

    We’re long since past the need to promote “nuclear families” as the only proper style of family. I admit, single parenting is a rough way to go about life and it would be better if these women wouldn’t get pregnant in the hopes of keeping a man, and it’d be nice if these guys wouldn’t spread their seeds to the wind like a generation of uncaring Johnny Appleseeds. I have a cousin who has five kids by three different guys. I’ve never met the guy she’s with now but maybe he’s one of the good ones who will stay with her and help raise all of them. And maybe he will wind up like the rest of them.

    Single parent, mixed race, blended step parent families, same sex families, sisters and brothers raising siblings, grandparents doing the raising instead (which happened to my aunt, the mother of this cousin, as it happens). Family is whatever you make it, however you make it work.

    Forcing a couple to marry because the girl got pregnant won’t always make a happy ending. Waiting until marriage for kids won’t necessarily make a happy ending either.

    Like

  25. kay~ms said

    P said: “hey kay, i know lots of kids from two christian parents, male and female, that have spent or are now spending time in prison ranging from drugs to theft to child molestation so that makes your christian two parents of opposite sex theory as a detriment to crime pointless.”

    Dorian said: “it’s usually the repressive “traditional”, hardcore religious households that have spawned some scared and confused individuals that have a hard time fitting in to society.”

    Any statistics on that? And I’m not talking about the Christian “extremists” that you are alluding to here. You’re trying to twist my point.

    Dorian said: “so yes, there’s no point to the “morally sound” i.e. “fundamentalist religious practitioner” argument.”

    There’s no point to the argument that following the guidelines of the Bible will lead to a better society?? (that’s my point.. again, I’m not talking about the fringe extremists that you are trying to apply to my point) So could you elaborate on your statement? Or does it not now apply?

    Let me introduce you both to the concept of statistics (again)… just because you find one or two or many situations that counter my point as shown here… what matters is statistics. There are many many more families and people who do prove my point correct. You guys continuously try to use the argument of the minority or exception… it’s not a valid argument. Doesn’t that tell you something? When you have to use exceptions to argue your views? It should.

    So, neither of you have provided valid arguments to the truth that following God’s word leads to less problems in society.

    Like

  26. kay~ms said

    1minion, I agree with your point… we should focus more on the unwanted (unadopted) children. But again, that doesn’t adequately counter my point that adoption should be chosen over abortion.

    I just came across an email from Onenewsnow “Battle on to ban same sex adoption”. This doesn’t sound right to me. There are so many children that need homes and love. And I’m not saying (Dorian) that a gay couple can’t give a child a good home and love. But I do believe that a child is always better off if they are loved and nutured by their biological parents, that is the intention. But, on the other hand, years ago I met a guy who was 16 at the time and he was adopted by a man several years earlier. The man was gay and the circumstantial evidence strongly pointed to the man not necessarily interested in being a father to him or not a conventional “father” anyway. To me, it appeared that this man was taking advantage of my friend’s situation. That possibly is what the fight is against.. situations like that. But I am able to acknowledge the probability of the STATISTICS that most gay couples do not have an agenda like that.

    Dorian said: “how about better unwanted pregnancy prevention and yes to minion’s encouraging more adoption for those unwanted children here. instead of fighting over the unborn, take care of the little ones that are already here.”

    How about fighting for both?? Why can’t we do that?

    Dorian said: “the “sanctity of marriage”? that term is moot. what’s the divorce rate in our country?”

    Thank you for again proving my point… the “santity of marriage” is deteriorating and the divorce rate shows that.

    The answer is to not abandon the idea of the importance of marriage.. it is to fight to rectify the problem and that is the Christian agenda.

    Like

  27. dorian said

    my point was that the term “sanctity of marriage”, taken literally by the those who take the bible literally, is only relevant to those who believe that marriage should only be a conventional marriage, man and woman creating the nuclear family structure. at present, reality dictates that there are those end up divorcing who they marry or happen to love someone of the same gender that they want to marry.

    so you think, kay, that following christian beliefs will keep a marriage intact? you know that’s not what it takes. otherwise, there will be no christians (catholics and all protestant sects) who divorce.

    playing the statistics game? we’ve been there so don’t bother. we can all cut and paste and you can even find good info in past posts, on this blog. tothewire posted some good statistics.

    Like

  28. If people took the Bible literally, men who wanted wives would kidnap and rape virgins they see passing along the road. Those were instructions from GOD on how to get a wife! Also, we would kill every member of cities that don’t believe EXACTLY the way we do, except of course for the choicest virgins who would go to our “holy” men. Again, instructions from GOD! And don’t forget to be happy about dashing their babies’ heads against rocks. Again, instructions from GOD! Be HAPPY you’re bashing the little babies’ heads in. What a loving God, huh?

    The Bible is one of the hateful and fear filled books ever written, undoubtedly the cause of much human misery since it was written. Sure, you can find other verses that say different things than what I quote, but what I quote is straight from your “holy” book. Christians endorsed slavery as coming from God, even though there were some Christians who opposed slavery. And that’s MY point; anyone can justify ANYTHING and claim they have divine authority by pointing to specific verses in the Bible and interpreting it their way.

    No, I do NOT think things would be better in society if everyone followed the teachings of the Bible. If they sincerely tried to become as Jesus, who was obviously a Buddhist, things WOULD be better.

    Like

  29. Another thing Kay that shows your lack of touch with reality…you make an artificial distinction between humans and animals. HELLO! We ARE animals, a species of ape, like it or not. IF your God is the one who created us, he either did it using evolution from fish to rat-like creatures to squirrel-like creatures to monkey-like creatures to us, OR he made it LOOK like it happened. Even if we were created from dust all at once instead of evolving, God made us AS animals. Look at your bones and muscles compared to a chimp. EVERY part matches!

    Like

  30. kay~ms said

    ouch.. I’m starting to get a headache…

    Dorian, you said: “so you think, kay, that following christian beliefs will keep a marriage intact? you know that’s not what it takes. otherwise, there will be no christians (catholics and all protestant sects) who divorce.”

    This statement is so?? ignorant? silly?… Again, I have to explain that exceptions are not the rule. And those Christians who divorced, I condend, did not follow the teachings of the Bible… because again, Christians are not perfect. Imperfect Christians do not define Christianity and it’s teachings.

    “playing the statistics game”…

    Statistics are not a game. So that is your argument to my point that followng the teachings of the Bible will alleviate social problems?

    You said: “at present, reality dictates that there are those end up divorcing who they marry or happen to love someone of the same gender that they want to marry.”

    Yes, I agree, that is what reality dictates… are you proposing that because it is a reality that it is right or a valid argument? because it isn’t. Those that divorced most likely could have worked it out (what the Bible teaches) and lived happily (including the children). And if not, they should have taken marriage more seriously (following the teachings of the Bible) before they married each other in the first place. And very possibly, those that love and want to marry someone of the same sex are making a mistake also… many could just be confused. Are they trying hard enough to live according to God’s will? I believe that many could be just as happy or happier choosing to go with what the Bible says.

    Like

  31. I have comments in moderation in this thread and another

    Like

  32. dorian said

    sorry TBG, i just got back on computer…

    kay, yes, society is evolving and yours is not the only reality that is valid. just because others do not follow WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ACCORDING TO FUNDAMENTALIST INTERPRETATION does not mean your reality is right and the others wrong.
    now if that isn’t judgmental and close-minded i don’t know what is.
    not interested in tail chasing. your “there is only one truth” rhetoric and liberal hate is rearing its ugly head again. 90% of what you say is about your hate for “liberals”. the fundamental christians i know don’t have that anger. you sure spread God’s love(?) in funny ways.

    Like

  33. kay~ms said

    Dorian, I don’t hate liberals but I do dislike liberal views and I’ve explained why. And I know I constantly “rag” on this group so much because they choose these views. This isn’t intolerance if that is what you are trying to say or imply. This is disagreeing. But with that being said, I understand your’s and 1minion’s and the majority of liberal’s views… the world is “evolving” and I acknowledge that that view seems to make sense (sometimes). But I and other Christians are presenting an argument to that. We don’t see it as evolving, we see it as society loosing it’s values and morals. If you or anyone else disagrees, give an argument. And if you can’t then you should be able to acknowledge that. Making comments like “just because others do not follow WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ACCORDING TO FUNDAMENTALIST INTERPRETATION does not mean your reality is right and the others wrong.” mean nothing if you can’t tell me why my stance is wrong or your stance is right. And the “chasing tails” comment certainly doesn’t argue the point either. That has always been your standard answer when ever you don’t have an argument.

    And again, I’m not “spreading hate”… an accusation liberals are extremely fond of… I’m disagreeing. I’m trying to make points and arguments. But we always get to this point where you can’t argue anymore and then the accusations seem to come out.

    I’m still waiting for any liberal here to argue against the stance that following God’s word alleviates social problems.

    And how the argument that the “world is evolving” makes it okay to not follow these guidelines if they work. Couldn’t the world be evolving in a destructive direction? That is exactly what is happening. And yes, I’m going to close again with another liberal critique… the liberal agenda is excellerating this destructive direction.

    Like

  34. kay~ms said

    TBG said: “If people took the Bible literally, men who wanted wives would kidnap and rape virgins they see passing along the road. Those were instructions from GOD on how to get a wife! Also, we would kill every member of cities that don’t believe EXACTLY the way we do, except of course for the choicest virgins who would go to our “holy” men. Again, instructions from GOD! And don’t forget to be happy about dashing their babies’ heads against rocks. Again, instructions from GOD! Be HAPPY you’re bashing the little babies’ heads in. What a loving God, huh?”

    I think you are pushing incorrect or misrepresented (anti) Christian propaganda again.
    Please refer to the passages that back this up.

    You said: “And that’s MY point; anyone can justify ANYTHING and claim they have divine authority by pointing to specific verses in the Bible and interpreting it their way.”

    And that is why we shouldn’t automatically believe every “prophet” or preacher. We use our God given common sense to decide what has been interpreted correctly and incorrectly. And we ask God to help us understand the truth.

    But what people do who are looking for an excuse to not follow God’s will is disregard His word and the Bible all together. They don’t ask God anything because they don’t want to know the real truth.. they don’t want to know Him.

    “Christians endorsed slavery as coming from God, even though there were some Christians who opposed slavery. ”

    And yet again, the wrong actions of Christians used to prove how “bad” Christianity is. As long as you guys keep ignorantly doing this, I will keep pointing it out.

    “No, I do NOT think things would be better in society if everyone followed the teachings of the Bible.”

    TBG.. the Bible doesn’t teach us to do those things you described…and please refer to the New Testament to clear up any confusion you are having. The New Testament makes it clear about what God’s will is. And that is what I’m referring to. The teachings in the New Testament, when followed, would eliminate many of the social problems we have today. so could you please be more specific about the teachings that would not help our social problems if followed?

    Otherwise I’m going to have to conclude that you were less than honest when you stated that you do not think that things would be better if everyone followed the teachings of the Bible.

    Like

  35. kay~ms said

    I have a comment in moderation.

    Like

  36. 1minionsopinion said

    “I just came across an email from Onenewsnow “Battle on to ban same sex adoption”. This doesn’t sound right to me. There are so many children that need homes and love. And I’m not saying (Dorian) that a gay couple can’t give a child a good home and love. But I do believe that a child is always better off if they are loved and nutured by their biological parents, that is the intention

    “1minion, I agree with your point… we should focus more on the unwanted (unadopted) children. But again, that doesn’t adequately counter my point that adoption should be chosen over abortion.”

    And I’m saying there are enough kids in the world now who need loving families, gay or straight – so long as they’re raised to be happy, healthy and productive and law abiding, it won’t matter who the parents are. There are people who have kids and then abuse or neglect all of them. There are people who have kids who can’t afford to have kids and probably shouldn’t have gotten pregnant to begin with.

    If abortion really is the big deal, then promote contraceptive use so pregnancy, even as married couples, is only going to happen if both people truly want it to happen and are committed to raising the kid or kids properly. And if it turns out those couples can’t have kids, don’t go the expensive IVF route – adopt or foster someone else’s.

    Like

  37. 1minionsopinion said

    I bolded kay’s stuff because it looked like a contradiction. Was it? I bolded the contraceptive part because that’s a very cheap alternative to abortion. Have safe sex all the time and there will probably never be a need to think about abortion as an alternative for getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy. Don’t get pregnant in the first place.

    Like

  38. 1minionsopinion said

    “the world is “evolving” and I acknowledge that that view seems to make sense (sometimes). But I and other Christians are presenting an argument to that. We don’t see it as evolving, we see it as society loosing it’s values and morals. If you or anyone else disagrees, give an argument.”

    The human species is great at adapting. Our cultures adapt to make room for other ideologies, other faiths, other philosophies. Our languages evolve. (Maybe Hors could explain why those responsible for the French language try to stop that from happening?)

    And as our societies progress down scientific roads, ethical dilemmas crop up because we’ve learned that what’s possible isn’t always what’s most advantageous. But when it is…

    Organ transplant was probably a big ethical conundrum back in the 1960s when people first started thinking about how they’d pull hearts out and use them in other bodies. A gal I used to work with – her daughter was fortunate to get a lung transplant a few years ago. Of course, she’ll be on pills for the rest of her life to combat the rejection process, but at least she’s alive and healthy otherwise. Organ donation is such a big need but how many people fill out anything allowing their removal should they obviously be of no use to yourself anymore? I haven’t, but I know I should. Why let my innards go to waste if people could live because of them?

    Does scientific progress march to a different beat than cultural ones? Sure. But with time and support and a lot of discussion, it’s usually worthwhile to weigh on science’s side. It’s why we have penicillin and a cure for rabies, among other things.

    Yes, things change faster than most people can deal with, faster than organized religions can cope with the influx of new ideas and possibilities.

    Define the values. Define the morals. Are the values or morals too old fashioned? Not modern enough? Not flexible enough? Progress doesn’t have to mean throwing caution to the wind, though. Look at each new idea and possibility and see how those ideas and possibilities can fit your values, your morals. Work with the changes, adapt to the changes. It should be possible to make room for the changes and still maintain a core belief about what’s important in your life, and how you want to live your life.

    Just because others want legal abortion doesn’t mean you are forced to have one.

    Just because contraceptives exist doesn’t mean you have to use them.

    Just because gay marriages are happening doesn’t mean you have to have one.

    Just because celebrities lie about sex tapes doesn’t mean you have to have one.

    Just because others do, doesn’t mean you have to. Hang onto your values, do what you think is right, and leave everyone else to do what they think is right.

    Beliefs are going to clash, there’s no getting around it. Learn to deal and accept the differences.

    Like

  39. Kay, everything I said is in the Bible. It really does tell people to murder whole cities, rape virgins as wives, and bash babies’ heads in. Don’t you know this already? Don’t you read it?

    Sure, when I get a few minutes I’ll give you chapter and verse. My point is that when you say people should follow the teachings of the Bible, what you’re REALLY saying is you think people should follow what YOU think the teachings of the Bible are.

    Like

  40. when you say better if people follow the teachings of the Bible, don’t forget that the Old Testament IS considered part of the Bible and people still use pieces of it like the ten commandments.

    Another funny thing about those if I recall correctly…the list usually given on posters and plaques isn’t the actual ten commandments. Apparently there’s more than one place about this in the Bible, and the official list has some things different from the list that one usually sees.

    Like

  41. dorian said

    as the old adage goes, “prevention is better than cure”. yes, if effective birth control methods are responsibly used and are made available to those who can’t afford them, there would be less unwanted pregnancies, right? then of course there are those religious groups (traditional catholics) who follow the archaic vatican rule of “the only accepted birth control method is the rhythm method”. and how effective is that??
    and there’s the angry fundamentalist christian cult er sect that wants to close down every planned parenthood office. some members have been known to bomb the offices (with people in it) and assasinate doctors because they are pro-life.!?!

    Like

  42. kay~ms said

    “some members have been known to bomb the offices (with people in it) and assasinate doctors because they are pro-life.!?!”

    You mean there are actually disturbed and confused people??? People who claim to be Christians but don’t follow Christian teachings?? Wow… but what does that have to do with the fact that abortion clinics perform late term abortions, tearing fetus’ apart or burning them with chemicals to kill them or sticking a needle in their hearts to stop them?

    And what does that have to do with the group of people who are against abortion? Statistics show that an overwhelming majority of Christians who are against abortion do NOT bomb abortion clinics or commit any other forms of violence… because they follow Christian teachings. So your point is … pointless. It just reminded us that there are people who are disturbed and confused… who are present in all groups of people btw.

    As to preventing pregnancies in the first place… yes! But again, why can’t we do both? Why do you all keeping giving these alternatives as replacements for abolishing abortion? And in such a judgemental tone often… I say do both. That is the best answer.

    1 minion.. there is no contradiction there… I didn’t say to prevent gay adoption.. there is such a great need for people to adopt. But are you saying that people should kill their unborn child for the sole reason that there are already children who are not getting adopted? These reason that you all are giving for aborting innocent lives are not justified.

    Like

  43. kay said

    I have a comment in moderation.

    Like

  44. dorian said

    not abolishing abortion has to to do with the fact that this country is a democracy with a constitution that protects our individual rights. those who are in favor of banning abortion are in it for religious, personal and “morality” reasons. who are you to determine what is moral and what is immoral for everybody else? oh, that’s right, you are acting out the “will”of God. written and interpreted in countless ways by human beings; imperfect, no less. the law is the law and your religious beliefs and own morality issues have nothing to do with this country’s governance. i will keep putting up this link as long as religious self-righteousness continues to show itself:
    https://tothewire.wordpress.com/history-of-separation-of-church-and-state/

    Like

  45. 1minionsopinion said

    “1 minion.. there is no contradiction there… I didn’t say to prevent gay adoption.. there is such a great need for people to adopt. But are you saying that people should kill their unborn child for the sole reason that there are already children who are not getting adopted? These reason that you all are giving for aborting innocent lives are not justified.”

    You said in one comment kids belong with their biological parents and in another comment you said we should care about the unwanted ones and adopt them. I never said abort and adopt instead. I said instead of getting pregnant, consider adopting. That is not the same thing so don’t twist that up to make a strawman argument out of it.

    Like

  46. kay said

    1minion said: “You said in one comment kids belong with their biological parents and in another comment you said we should care about the unwanted ones and adopt them. ”

    This is what I said: “I just came across an email from Onenewsnow “Battle on to ban same sex adoption”. This doesn’t sound right to me. There are so many children that need homes and love. And I’m not saying (Dorian) that a gay couple can’t give a child a good home and love. But I do believe that a child is always better off if they are loved and nutured by their biological parents, that is the intention.”

    Yes, kids should be with their biological parents whenever possible. And yes, we should care about the unwanted kids and adopt them. That would be the kids that cannot be with their biological parents for whatever reason. I’m not seeing where the contradiction is.

    You said: “I never said abort and adopt instead. I said instead of getting pregnant, consider adopting. That is not the same thing so don’t twist that up to make a strawman argument out of it.”

    I didn’t mean to twist your words.. It was just the best understanding I had of what you said… the point you are making didn’t make sense before and it doesn’t now… the whole reason this issue is an issue is because of unwanted pregnancy. What does people choosing to get pregnant instead of adopting have to do with the issue of abortion?

    1minion said:

    Just because others want legal abortion doesn’t mean you are forced to have one.

    Just because contraceptives exist doesn’t mean you have to use them.

    Just because gay marriages are happening doesn’t mean you have to have one.

    Just because celebrities lie about sex tapes doesn’t mean you have to have one.

    Just because others do, doesn’t mean you have to. Hang onto your values, do what you think is right, and leave everyone else to do what they think is right.

    YOu know, as long is it doesn’t affect others in a negative way.. I am all for what you are saying. Abortion affects others in a negative way to put it mildly. so I don’t agree with you on that one.. It’s like saying.. you don’t believe in murder then don’t commit one.

    As for gay marriage… I don’t care if two people (which ever two people) want to “marry” and spend the rest of their lives together.. who’s stopping them??? I do have a right to not want something that is so fundamental and basic to society changed. I do have a right to be concerned about issues that affect society. For instance, I don’t want condoms passed out at schools, I believe it sends children the wrong message. To just say “but out” and mind your own business is ignorant. We are all part of society and have a right to voice our opinions.

    Like

  47. kay~ms said

    I have a comment in moderation.

    And Dorian, I know you would like to believe that all of the people who are against abortion are “religiously self-righeous” but that is just not the case.

    I don’t have the statistics but I’m pretty sure that most sincerely care about the suffering and loss of life that is occuring. After reading what I described earlier (abortion methods), how could you possibly think otherwise?? How can someone not be concerned about that? And how can anyone believe that “freedom of choice” is a fair trade off to this? And I would much rather be accused of self-rightousness than selfishness anyday. Carry the baby and give it up for adoption. All will be better off in the long run. Obviously the easiest (seemingly) choice is to abort but it’s not the right choice. It’s not the right thing to do.

    Like

  48. dorian said

    wooosh!!

    either kay has a complicated way of explaining what she means or i have a complicated way of processing information (hers), but i feel i’m in a roller coaster loop when i read kay. you confuse me, kay. especially when you go on the “you said”, “i said” routine. i’m taking a break and eating my fried chicken and mashed potatoes dinner. then ice cream for desert. rocky road!!

    Like

  49. dorian said

    one more thing before i stuff myself…

    kay, you and other anti-abortionists are for banning all abortions, without exception and consideration for special circumstances like rape, incest and the like. how is that humane? i’m not for late-term abortions, along with many pro-choice advocates. any kind abortion may not be right for you but no one, you or anyone else like you, can tell someone else what to do with anybody else’s lives. capisce? disengaging from this conversation, 10-4, hut!!

    Like

  50. kay~ms said

    First, could you elabortate on your previous comment? What are you confused about? I would be glad to clear it up for you. I admit it’s very possible that I made things more confusing.

    You said: “the law is the law and your religious beliefs and own morality issues have nothing to do with this country’s governance. i will keep putting up this link as long as religious self-righteousness continues to show itself:

    You are wrong, my beliefs DO have something to do with this country’s governance as does everyone’s. We VOTE on the law.. it is the law (legalized abortion) because of a vote.
    And aren’t you accusing me and other anti abortionists of “religious self righteousness here? I believe so. so what is the confusion?

    Second, I am against all abortions ESPECIALLY late term abortions. I understand that early term abortions (before anything has formed) have more to do with moral and religious issues than anything else. And to that I will say that while government may not have the right to deprive women of these abortions, I will still voice my opinion and vote accordingly to try to stop it because I believe that is God’s will. But for late term abortions it is the governments responsibility to protect the unborn person LIVING inside the mother. When they are formed and have a heart beat.

    You say that you are against these (late term) abortions but obviously not to the point where you would like to stop them. You believe a woman’s “right” to choose is more valuable than an inocent human life. Thousands of inocent human lives. If you were truly against late term abortions you wouldn’t turn a blind eye to it like you and all pro life people do and just let it continue.

    And NO, I don’t believe that it should be okay even if a woman is raped. I don’t believe it is God’s will for the life to be aborted. Now, are you talking about a late term abortion here? I would really like to know how you feel about that situation. Or what if the woman decides in the later stages that she cannot go thru with the pregnancy because of mental issues (depresion), do you believe she should be able to terminate?

    Like

  51. princessxxx said

    KAY SAYS, “And NO, I don’t believe that it should be okay even if a woman is raped. I don’t believe it is God’s will for the life to be aborted.”

    well, you don’t “believe” it is god’s will, what about that free will that you claim god gave us?

    at any point, it is very simple, unless you are the one facing the “choice”, it has nothing to do with you. PERIOD.

    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: