100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: I dont understand, please help | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Yeah, thats true. I think its good he took the initiative though. Its not that bad of a procedure and much easier for the male to have it done than the female tubal ligation which is more invasive. surgical nanobots are due out soon, it will be a piece of cake! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treaty with Tripoli 1796 Article 11 As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. Im not re-writing all this. Its on that "John McCain and Faith" thread. This is one small piece of supportive evidence. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/170980  From the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Every President from Washington to Bush has prayed, invoked prayer or otherwise asked God for His continued blessing on the United States during their Inaugural Address YOu can find more information on www.faithofourfathers.org I wasn't trying to be off topic. Just point out that Faith and Religion do have a place in our country's history. It is our background and even engraved on monuments surrounding Washington. Based on these beliefs and the majorities moral convictions murder is wrong. We have proven especially with ultrasounds that the baby a woman carries is a live human being. My neice was born at 23 weeks. She was 1 lb 7 oz and 11 3/4 inches long. Today she is the most beautiful, normal, healthy 6 year old you will ever see. With today's technology there are many ways to prevent harm to the mother or baby. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Wed 10/15/08 08:29 PM
|
|
You didnt even bother to read that thread I gave you the link to.
The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion". This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy Muslims, they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams. Treaty with Tripoli 1796 Article 11 As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. Yes of course I read your post. Am I not allowed to elaborate on my own comments? Besides, we were discussing both the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence. Stop being so restrictive. Just because you personally choose to disagree with my position (even though its based in fact) does not mean I can not discuss it. None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular. Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording was "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence, it is a historical document, not a constitutional one. You dont appear to have a very clear understanding of the distinction drawn between the two if you are going to sit there and throw that one line in people's faces. Pfft.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
Thomas Jefferson The third president of the United States - to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."
John Adams-Second President of the United States - letter to John Taylor . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." Thomas Jefferson The third president of the United States - to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814 K, i'm curious, you state or someone states that "MOST" of the founding fathers were deist? i know jefferson and a few others were most definitely - but do you know how many? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ones I know of for certain that were NOT Christian and were actually against it's involvement were.
Thomas Jefferson John Adams Benjamin Franklin Thomas Paine James Madison George Washington Abraham Lincoln So thats 7 that I am aware of. I would have to start looking to find more though. The only thing is if we do that, probably go back on that McCain thread as thats not fair to this thread as its more the abortion issue. Im saying this so as to not be rude. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Wed 10/15/08 08:57 PM
|
|
The ones I know of for certain that were NOT Christian and were actually against it's involvement were. Thomas Jefferson John Adams Benjamin Franklin Thomas Paine James Madison George Washington Abraham Lincoln So thats 7 that I am aware of. I would have to start looking to find more though. The only thing is if we do that, probably go back on that McCain thread as thats not fair to this thread as its more the abortion issue. Im saying this so as to not be rude. no problem there - but old abe was not a founding father so ill scratch him off the list. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK Krimsa we agree to disagree. I responded to the abortion issue because I have been in this situation twice. Once was rape the second an unplanned pregnancy. Abortion was suggested, offered and almost forced. I'm so thankful I listened to my heart. My daughter is such a blessing and I wouldn't trade her for the world regardless of the circumstances of her conception. Also, Doctors have proven that the cases of pregnancy due to rape are few as the body naturally protects itself during times of extreme fear and pain. As in my case, nature took its course and I lost the baby within a couple of days. I was able to have 3 healthy beautiful children since. I know several women who cannot have children due to abortions that were performed legally and by quality doctors. I will say, no this does not happen to everyone who has an abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well he's recognizable though so I put him there. Im not making the claim that there were no Christians involved with congress of course. That would be wrong. I am saying that these guys were not Christians and its very noticeable in the wording of these documents. In fact it created a tremendous amount of conflict during the writing of the Constitution. Im also shocked at how many US citizens now are oblivious to this as they have been wrongly taught (by other Christians) that "this country was founded on Christian principles" which is hogwash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK Krimsa we agree to disagree. I responded to the abortion issue because I have been in this situation twice. Once was rape the second an unplanned pregnancy. Abortion was suggested, offered and almost forced. I'm so thankful I listened to my heart. My daughter is such a blessing and I wouldn't trade her for the world regardless of the circumstances of her conception. Also, Doctors have proven that the cases of pregnancy due to rape are few as the body naturally protects itself during times of extreme fear and pain. As in my case, nature took its course and I lost the baby within a couple of days. I was able to have 3 healthy beautiful children since. I know several women who cannot have children due to abortions that were performed legally and by quality doctors. I will say, no this does not happen to everyone who has an abortion. Its okay. Im not arguing with you and Im sorry for your troubles. This thread is not about the Founding Fathers and US history anyway. Im glad you were able to have your child but not all women are in a position to do that and it is important that this right remain in our hands and not restricted or completely criminalized. It will be a major step backwards for women if that were to occur. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is the child product of a raped responsible for the rape? if we accept that life has the same value in any form full developed or in fetal state then which one has more value that of the mother or the fetus. is the fetus some sort of being which does not have life? the fact that a human being is not full developed make him or her of less value of a full developed human being? who are we to decide who lives or die? it is correct a human being has the absolute right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body. however, when there is a pregnancy it is not one body anymore there are two bodies there. so does the right to do what i want with my body gives me the right to do what i want with another human being's body? not judging anybody just making questions. at the end questions of life and dead cannot be answered if we are not in the very same position as the person who has to make the decision. God gives guidance to those who has to make these choices. keep the little babies close to you. Amen. But you are not allowing the woman to make a choice. Look at what you just indicated. Your "choice" in other words, is that she MUST be restricted to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is a religious argument and not based on a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth and abortion is not murder; ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism. The religious community will never reach consensus on the definition of a “person” or when abortion is morally justified. Laws have never stopped abortion, but only relegated it to back-alley butchers. The hypocrisy is clear: when illegal abortion was the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S., there was no Right to Life (RTL) organization to cry out for these ADULT females who were being murdered as they sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Clearly you care more about these fetuses than the woman. Then why don't we allow mothers to kill their incorrigible children? What if the baby is two years old and the mother decides she desn't want it any more. Isn't is against her fundamental right to autonomy to get rid of the child whenever she wishes? What difference does it make if the child is 4 months in the womb or 4 years old in the back yard? Well lets take a look at what the bible says about disobedient children shall we? Also you avoided a direct answer to my question. Where were all you anti-choice religious folks when abortion was criminalized? Clearly it is not your overwhelming concern over the welfare of the adult female, but what she can and can not do with her own body. Thats the real point of contention. Here is your bible's take on it found in Exodus 21 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Kill unruly children. Well that will teach em! You cant be serious. Will you be taking care of all of these unwanted children that these women will now be forced to carry to term? What about the ones that will be born with medical and psychological problems from drug addicted mothers? Hmmm? How many rooms is your house Eljay? In answer to your question - where were we when abortion was criminalised. Standing in disbelief while the court system took our voice on the matter away. You see, we were not allowed to have a say. The american public has no say in the matters of abortion, gay marriage, or even illegal aliens. The court system of this country and the inept congress we have has seen to it the the majority has NO SAY on matters of law - or even how the constitution itself is to be interpreted. Look - I'm not the one who stated that a woman has the right to her autonomy, you did. As to the "unwanted children" who are aborted in this country - and the justification of this because of rape. Absurd argument. The statistics on the abortions done through "necessity" as compared through mere choice make the argument moot. And I don't need any rooms in my house - the amount of couples who would give anything to adopt a child in this country outnumber the amount of available children by the tens of thousands. So this argument has the weight of a feather as an acceptable premise. Yeah this is just inaccurate. Who is "our" exactly? The Fundies? Please. What about the voices of the women and other pro-choice defenders of human autonomy? What of their voices? You just wont be happy until you have achieved your goal of a complete disenfranchisement of American women and the right to control their own reproductive health. Inaccurate. You weren't even alive when Roe vs Wade was in the courts, I was. This matter was not put to vote. Your statement is illogical and idiotic. No ones voice was heard on this matter except the specific individual who the case was about. And since that trial, she has regreted having been involved in it. What I would be happy with is those disenfranchised woman you refer to having a say in the voters box along with everyone who has an issue with this topic. What are you afraid of letting it go to vote? You are confusing my issue of this having been decided by a small select group of individuals rather than the issue of abortion itself - of which I haven't even stated my opinion of. The “pro-life” concerns of abortion foes are only for fetal lives, not the lives of women or unwanted babies. I dont care if the pregnancy occurs due to rape, incest or an accident or failure of birth control. You can not force someone to carry a child to term and undergo labor. The fact that you still would argue against abortion under these horrible circumstances, just becomes a sadistic rant. I've not made one statement against abortion. Go back and read my post. Most Americans reject the absolutist position that it is always wrong to terminate a pregnancy and believe that abortion may be the morally right choice under certain circumstances.You don’t have to like abortion to respect the right of choice. Its one thing for you to have your own religious and personal beliefs but you can not force those down the throats of everyone and especially not in a legal capacity. Legislation cannot create morality. Prohibition did not stir moral outrage against drinking; it stirred outrage against prohibition, and promoted widespread disrespect for all laws. Thats why (as I pointed out to you already) our Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with Christianity. Its trouble. That is absolutely erroneous. Not all of these infants born of drug addicted mothers will be adopted or adoptable. So if you are going to insist that the right to choose is taken away, you better understand the full repercussions of your actions. You are demonstrating a serious lack of knowing your american history. Something else you have an opinion about without the research to support it I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well he's recognizable though so I put him there. Im not making the claim that there were no Christians involved with congress of course. That would be wrong. I am saying that these guys were not Christians and its very noticeable in the wording of these documents. In fact it created a tremendous amount of conflict during the writing of the Constitution. Im also shocked at how many US citizens now are oblivious to this as they have been wrongly taught (by other Christians) that "this country was founded on Christian principles" which is hogwash. i know you weren't i was just curious, i will lok into to it only because of the statement of most was used. its been so long i dont even remember how many people signed it i'll have to look it up - thnx |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Wed 10/15/08 09:30 PM
|
|
The ones I know of for certain that were NOT Christian and were actually against it's involvement were. Thomas Jefferson John Adams Benjamin Franklin Thomas Paine James Madison George Washington Abraham Lincoln So thats 7 that I am aware of. I would have to start looking to find more though. The only thing is if we do that, probably go back on that McCain thread as thats not fair to this thread as its more the abortion issue. Im saying this so as to not be rude. Don't know where you got your list from - as George Washington and John Adams were both devote Christians at the time of their service to this country - as was Abraham Lincoln - who was not part of the founding of the country. Please tell me you knew this. So we've reduced your list to no more than 4 - and Franklin did not aline himself with Deist belief. Jefferson did not become a Deist until later on in his life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Wed 10/15/08 10:43 PM
|
|
is the child product of a raped responsible for the rape? if we accept that life has the same value in any form full developed or in fetal state then which one has more value that of the mother or the fetus. is the fetus some sort of being which does not have life? the fact that a human being is not full developed make him or her of less value of a full developed human being? who are we to decide who lives or die? it is correct a human being has the absolute right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body. however, when there is a pregnancy it is not one body anymore there are two bodies there. so does the right to do what i want with my body gives me the right to do what i want with another human being's body? not judging anybody just making questions. at the end questions of life and dead cannot be answered if we are not in the very same position as the person who has to make the decision. God gives guidance to those who has to make these choices. keep the little babies close to you. Amen. But you are not allowing the woman to make a choice. Look at what you just indicated. Your "choice" in other words, is that she MUST be restricted to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is a religious argument and not based on a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth and abortion is not murder; ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism. The religious community will never reach consensus on the definition of a “person” or when abortion is morally justified. Laws have never stopped abortion, but only relegated it to back-alley butchers. The hypocrisy is clear: when illegal abortion was the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S., there was no Right to Life (RTL) organization to cry out for these ADULT females who were being murdered as they sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Clearly you care more about these fetuses than the woman. Then why don't we allow mothers to kill their incorrigible children? What if the baby is two years old and the mother decides she desn't want it any more. Isn't is against her fundamental right to autonomy to get rid of the child whenever she wishes? What difference does it make if the child is 4 months in the womb or 4 years old in the back yard? Well lets take a look at what the bible says about disobedient children shall we? Also you avoided a direct answer to my question. Where were all you anti-choice religious folks when abortion was criminalized? Clearly it is not your overwhelming concern over the welfare of the adult female, but what she can and can not do with her own body. Thats the real point of contention. Here is your bible's take on it found in Exodus 21 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Kill unruly children. Well that will teach em! You cant be serious. Will you be taking care of all of these unwanted children that these women will now be forced to carry to term? What about the ones that will be born with medical and psychological problems from drug addicted mothers? Hmmm? How many rooms is your house Eljay? In answer to your question - where were we when abortion was criminalised. Standing in disbelief while the court system took our voice on the matter away. You see, we were not allowed to have a say. The american public has no say in the matters of abortion, gay marriage, or even illegal aliens. The court system of this country and the inept congress we have has seen to it the the majority has NO SAY on matters of law - or even how the constitution itself is to be interpreted. Look - I'm not the one who stated that a woman has the right to her autonomy, you did. As to the "unwanted children" who are aborted in this country - and the justification of this because of rape. Absurd argument. The statistics on the abortions done through "necessity" as compared through mere choice make the argument moot. And I don't need any rooms in my house - the amount of couples who would give anything to adopt a child in this country outnumber the amount of available children by the tens of thousands. So this argument has the weight of a feather as an acceptable premise. Yeah this is just inaccurate. Who is "our" exactly? The Fundies? Please. What about the voices of the women and other pro-choice defenders of human autonomy? What of their voices? You just wont be happy until you have achieved your goal of a complete disenfranchisement of American women and the right to control their own reproductive health. Inaccurate. You weren't even alive when Roe vs Wade was in the courts, I was. This matter was not put to vote. Your statement is illogical and idiotic. No ones voice was heard on this matter except the specific individual who the case was about. And since that trial, she has regreted having been involved in it. What I would be happy with is those disenfranchised woman you refer to having a say in the voters box along with everyone who has an issue with this topic. What are you afraid of letting it go to vote? You are confusing my issue of this having been decided by a small select group of individuals rather than the issue of abortion itself - of which I haven't even stated my opinion of. The “pro-life” concerns of abortion foes are only for fetal lives, not the lives of women or unwanted babies. I dont care if the pregnancy occurs due to rape, incest or an accident or failure of birth control. You can not force someone to carry a child to term and undergo labor. The fact that you still would argue against abortion under these horrible circumstances, just becomes a sadistic rant. I've not made one statement against abortion. Go back and read my post. Most Americans reject the absolutist position that it is always wrong to terminate a pregnancy and believe that abortion may be the morally right choice under certain circumstances.You don’t have to like abortion to respect the right of choice. Its one thing for you to have your own religious and personal beliefs but you can not force those down the throats of everyone and especially not in a legal capacity. Legislation cannot create morality. Prohibition did not stir moral outrage against drinking; it stirred outrage against prohibition, and promoted widespread disrespect for all laws. Thats why (as I pointed out to you already) our Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with Christianity. Its trouble. That is absolutely erroneous. Not all of these infants born of drug addicted mothers will be adopted or adoptable. So if you are going to insist that the right to choose is taken away, you better understand the full repercussions of your actions. You are demonstrating a serious lack of knowing your american history. Something else you have an opinion about without the research to support it I'm afraid. Oh, here we go again. Because Im not as old as you or I "was not alive" when significant historical events might have taken place, my knowledge or understanding of them is somehow not as comprehensive as your own. Okay lets take a closer look at Roe Vs. Wade then shall we? "Roe v. Wade, is a controversial United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time." So it sounds to me like it was a decision reached by the supreme court which upheld the 14th Amendment I was responding to your idiotic comment about how "it was never put to vote" These state and federal laws restricting abortion were found to be in conflict with an Amendment to the Constitution. Well why dont you state your opinion on abortion then? Get to it already. You have certainly insinuated that you would not be a proponent of a woman's fundamental right to choice. Based on the fact that I have been communicating with you on various topics for the past 6 months my guess would be that you are opposed to procedural abortion in 100 % of all cases and under any circumstances. If that is not the situation here, then what the hell are you afraid of then? State your position! What exactly am I basing my "own opinion" on without supportive evidence? Can you point that out? Because all I see is a lot of fundamentalist whining and rhetoric and you wont even lay down what your stance is on abortion. What do you plan on shocking me or something? Are you going to announce that you would allow it in the case of rape, incest and mother's health? Pfft. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Wed 10/15/08 10:04 PM
|
|
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
. Ben Franklin 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
George Washington - letter to Edward Newenham, 1792 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uh...I think the difference is abortion kills innocent life. Self defense & hunting for food is not a sin. Do you have to eat to survive? What's sad is people are so bamboozled that they can't distinguish between murder & self defense or sport vs. self preservation ???? But then you advocate breaking the law anyway, so what's the difference? Abortion is legal and it give people choice. Just the way it should be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.''
Thomas Paine I love this one for obvious reasons. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Wed 10/15/08 10:18 PM
|
|
"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."
Abraham Lincoln |
|
|
|
|
