Obama is "The Most Extreme Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever"

Ethicist Robert George of Princeton University exposes Barack Obama’s militantly pro-abortion views in an new article found here.  George says that any claim that Barack Obama is the more pro-life candidate is simply “delusional.”  He writes:  “Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.”

Indeed, Obama said that the first thing he wants to do as President is to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) which would nullify every modest restriction on abortion in the land–including bans on partial-birth abortion, parental notification, and even conscience clauses that allow doctors and nurses to opt out of performing abortions (they would have to perform them or risk firing!).  FOCA would also overturn the Hyde Amendment which would mean that taxpayers would be forced to pay for abortions!  

Read George’s entire article here

104 replies
  1. Tim D. says:

    Pathetic. More Evangelical scare tactics.

    First off, I think it is a sad and ridiculous over-generalization to call anyone “pro-abortion.” Almost nobody is pro-abortion; we have the phrase “pro-choice” for a reason. Barack Obama is not “pro-abortion,” he is pro-choice; he advocates the need for the choice to be on the table, as opposed to the idea that we should just illegalize it and hope the problem will go away.

    I think that if Christians were really, truly concerned with the mortality rate of embryos/zygotes/fetuses/etc., they would be pro-choice as well; how ironic is it that abortion clinics themselves, as a whole, do more to prevent the need for abortion than these psychotic protesters? They sponsor sex-education classes to prevent unintended pregnancies and other sexual mishaps (such as disease), and also offer counseling and other services for young expectant mothers who don’t know what to do.

    And yet, Christians still seem to think that waving flags that say, “Just don’t have sex!” is going to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies….as a famous comedian once said, “That’s like saying we’re gonna cure diarrhea by duct-taping our asses shut!”

    Reply
  2. Frank Turek says:

    Tim,

    Could you deal with Professor George’s arguments rather than emote? BTW, murder doesn’t go away when we outlaw it either, but it does seem to cut it down a bit.

    Thanks for your posts.

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  3. Andrew Ryan says:

    Will read the article later today.

    Funny how abortion rates go down under Democrat Presidents and go up under Republicans. So who’s pro-life?

    Reply
  4. Tim D. says:

    Could you deal with Professor George’s arguments rather than emote?

    Seeing that his article is about 60% emote, 30% distortion and maybe 10% actual research, I’m surprised you’d play that card on me 0_0

    BTW, murder doesn’t go away when we outlaw it either, but it does seem to cut it down a bit.

    Even murder has instances in which it is legally justified.

    Reply
  5. Tim D. says:

    Just finished reading the whole article (didn’t have time this morning).

    Yeah, that’s definitely a ridiculous scare-tactic article. I don’t see anything wrong with opposing any of the anti-choice legislations he opposed that the author mentioned; it is only in the delusion of the author himself, alongside his paranoid ravings, that these things become “horrible” or “disturbing.” He constantly uses the term “infanticide” (which has nothing to do with abortions; abortions don’t kill infants, they terminate embryos and fetuses; an infant is a baby that has been born) in connection with Barack’s policies, along with words like “killing” and “murder.” I was expecting one or more of those source links to have some disturbing or incriminating information, but all I found were links to videos and articles quoting Obama as saying things like, “I will sign this amendment,” etc. Followed shortly, of course, by the author’s mischaracterization of the intent of said amendment(s). The “abortion industry?” Is that anything like the medical industry? Abortion is only an “industry” in the sense that amputation is an “industry.” It’s a medical procedure.

    More like, “the religion industry.” Yeah, that sounds more realistic.

    The whole article is clearly just the work of another conceited ideologue trying to scare low-information voters into supporting his cause. I repeat: pathetic.

    Reply
  6. Bryan says:

    Tim…

    You say:
    “He constantly uses the term “infanticide” (which has nothing to do with abortions; abortions don’t kill infants, they terminate embryos and fetuses; an infant is a baby that has been born)”

    We have this biological entity that you are referring to as a infant when it is outside the womb and an embryo/fetus when it is inside the womb. One thing we know for sure here is that this thing being referred to as an ‘infant’ in one breath and a ‘embryo/fetus’ in another breath is the exact same thing – that is to say the exact same physical/biological thing as can be evidenced, for example, by the fact that it has the exact same human DNA that makes it uniquely identifiable as the same thing at both of those stages of development. Fundamentally, this object you refer to with two different labels is only one thing, your labels are both pointing to the exact same actual object.

    OK, now let’s identify the differences between the thing you apply two different names/labels to. I can think of a few. 1) location – when this thing is in its embryo/fetus stage of development it is obviously located in a different place (inside the womb) than it is when it is in its infant stage of development (outside the womb). 2) dependence – When this thing is in its embryo/fetus stage of development, it is very much dependent on the woman who is carrying it in her womb for its survival. When this thing is in its infant stage of development it is still very dependent on persons other than itself for its survival, albeit not necessarily one particular individual as in the first case.

    So, here’s what I don’t get. If you have a moral problem with the killing of infants, but do not have a moral problem with the killing of embryos/fetuses, logic dictates that I can only assume you believe one is a moral problem and the other is not because of the differences between the things that are being killed. But, as we saw, it is indisputable that these different labels you are using are referring to more than one actual thing. The different labels represent non-fundamental differences in the descriptions of these things, namely location and level of dependence.

    I don’t understand how or why it makes any sense whatsoever to use a humans location or its level of dependence as a justification for killing them. Just think of a few examples and you’ll realize how silly it sounds.

    location: If Bob stands on the east side of the street, we should let him live, but if he crosses the street and stands on the west side, it should be okay to kill him.

    dependence: A friend of mine’s wife was quite ill will an intestinal condition and a few days in advance of a surgery they performed on her, they had to put her into a medically induced coma. So, since she is now as dependent on someone else for her survival as an in-womb-infant is for his, does it mean that it is morally okay to go ahead and kill her?

    I’ll be glad to listen if you can show me where my thinking on the matter is flawed or less than correct. As most people are aware, it’s often much easier for someone else to recognize your problematic thinking than it is to recognize it yourself.

    Reply
  7. Tim D. says:

    I don’t understand how or why it makes any sense whatsoever to use a humans location or its level of dependence as a justification for killing them. Just think of a few examples and you’ll realize how silly it sounds.

    Nice; it’s been awhile since somebody has so carefully constructed a strawman from words they crammed into my mouth. Now let me try and answer you with my own words, eh?

    I do not use its location as a factor in this decision; that’s a silly thing to say. However, dependence is very much an issue; do you have the right to deny someone else dependence upon your body for whatever reason? If someone dies because you didn’t donate them a kidney, are you a murderer? Likewise, if an organism that is not yet an infant (because it is still dependent on the womb for nutrients and growth) needs a womb and you decide not to let it use yours, are you a murderer then? What’s the difference?

    dependence: A friend of mine’s wife was quite ill will an intestinal condition and a few days in advance of a surgery they performed on her, they had to put her into a medically induced coma. So, since she is now as dependent on someone else for her survival as an in-womb-infant is for his, does it mean that it is morally okay to go ahead and kill her?

    Putting someone into a medical coma for surgery is not the same thing at all; you’d be better off using coma patient logic here. Coma patients are long-term, more like fetal development; there are far less similarities between long-term fetal development and short-term medical comas. In any case, that’s a separate issue….but from my own standpoint, keep in mind that the dependence here is not on another person’s body but another person’s decision; different animals, they are. Such a decision does not place physical burden on you; you are not forced to carry this coma patient around with you; it does not use your body. When a person is able to function on their own without the help of another person’s body (which is true of any human from the infant stages onward), we cannot justify letting them die without referring to their own wishes or those of whomever has their power of attorney. We would charge a person with murder for “pulling the cord” in any case but those. With a person’s body, things change; you are not deemed a murderer for not donating parts of your body, or allowing parts of your body (i.e. uterus) to be used by other people. I don’t see how this is any different; a fetus isn’t even a “person” yet, not like an infant, so it’s even harder to draw a comparison.

    Reply
  8. Bryan says:

    My intent was not to construct a strawman, I was just trying to imagine what your thinking might be. Seems like I stumbled upon dependence as your reason, so since you’ve now told me what you’re thinking is, I can address that. Thanks.

    The comparison you gave between an in-womb-infant depending on the mother and an ill person in need of an organ depending on a person with a good organ is interesting and thought provoking. On its face, I will admit, the two situations seem similar. Let’s try to list similarities and differences:

    similarities:
    * biological thing A dies without something given to it from biological thing B

    differences:
    * Permanence and lack of permanent loss – In the case of an in-womb-infant needing the womb and all that comes with it for survival, the need is not permanent. That is to say, the mother has to provide the thing needed for survival to the in-womb-infant for a finite amount of time – approximately 9 months. Additionally, the mother doesn’t have to give anything away in the sense that the thing being given is something she can not get back. In other words, to use crude yet simple language, she’s basically leasing space out temporarily. This can be made more clear when juxtaposed to your example of organ donation. With most kinds of organ donation (such as donating a kidney for example), the thing required for survival given by the donor to the dependent is permanent in the sense that it is not something the donor can ever replace or hope to get back. Once you give one of your kidneys away, it is gone. To take the example further, with other kinds of organs – the kind we don’t have two of – the donor would have to die in order to be able to donate the organ to the dependent.

    * Sacrificial death by biological thing B – This is related a bit to the ‘permanence’ difference. In the case of the womb, rare is the case where the mother would die as a result of providing the life sustaining situation. In the case of an organ donor, specifically a donor providing an organ of which they have only one – the chance of them surviving after the provide biological thing A with what they need is virtually nil.

    * Responsibility – In the standard organ donation case, the donor is not responsible for the existence of the person dependent on that organ. In the womb case, the mother – again, in most cases (excluding rape for instance) – is clearly responsible for the fact that the thing that would die if she chose not to let it be located inside of her is only there in the first place because of the reproductive act she participated in. To be clear, I’m modestly arguing for a simple kind of cause and effect responsibility, not a moral/religious kind.

    * Size of the population that can provide life sustaining thing – In the case of the mother’s womb, there is only one person in the world – at least in the early stages of development – that can provide the life sustaining thing with a reasonable chance of the dependent actually surviving. In the organ donation case, the population size is all of humanity that has a successfully functioning organ. This one becomes more obvious when we start to think of the notion of prosecuting every human with a decent organ in the country for murder.

    * Positive Choice – In the mother’s womb case, if the mother does NOT act, the in-womb-infant survives and gets to become an out-of-womb infant. In the organ donation case, if the organ donor does NOT act, the person in need of an organ will likely die. In other words, the mother has to make a positive choice and actually do something to CAUSE a death. The organ donor doesn’t have to do anything and the person who needs an organ still dies.

    * Outcome resulting from the natural course being followed – Again, this is interrelated to the previous one. In the case of the mother’s womb, if the natural biological state were allowed to carry on its merry way, it would likely lead to the successful birth of a healthy child. In the natural biological scenario of (a person who needs an organ) + (a stranger who has a good organ) were allowed to carry on its merry way, this would likely lead to the person who needs the organ dying and the person who has a good organ living.

    * Cause and effect vs. Circumstance – In the mother’s womb case, her positive choice (to actually do something instead of not do something) directly causes a death. In the case of a person dependent on a healthy organ for survival, it is true that this person will likely die if an organ donor does NOT making a positive choice to donate an organ, but one can hardly claim that the organ donor CAUSED the death of the person in need of the organ. The cause of the death in this latter case was some impersonal force such as the disease that ruined the organ in the first place.

    So, it seems there is quite an exhaustive list of differences. There may be more, these are just the ones I came up with off the top of my head.

    You make another errant claim when you say that – paraphrasing – “any human, from the infant (to be clear here, I assume you mean out-of-womb infant) stage onward, is able to function (I take it you mean ‘survive’) on their own without the help of another person’s body.” This is just patently false. I have three children, all of them as healthy when they were born as a parent could hope for. That being said, not one of them could have survived on their own without the help of me and my wife’s body. The kind of help my wife and I had to provide them all with after their location became outside of her woman was definitely different than they kind of help they required for survival inside her womb, but it was help nonetheless. By your reasoning, the moment an infant tranforms from being an in-womb infant to out-of-womb infant, they should simply be able to support themselves and survive as a grown man would without an ounce of help from anyone. For example, it was another person’s body who kept these children in a state of survival – my wife nursed them with her very body and I used my brain to read the instructions on the formula can and my hands, wrists, arms, abdominals, central nervous system and who knows how many other parts of my body to shake the bottle up so the powder mixed with the water.

    Next, you make the claim that a ‘fetus’ is not even a ‘person’ yet. That’s something you’ll have to argue for. You act as if it is a premise that I should accept on its face, not so. As far as I can tell, this cannot be true unless you use location or dependence in your definition of personhood.

    So, it seems that, under the model you have set up, if we have no problem killing in-womb-infants (refer to them with whatever term you like), we can also not have any problem with the killing of out-of-womb infants. You’d at least be on rationally sound – albeit morally heinous – footing if you were consistent enough to follow your own logic to its obvious conclusion.

    Reply
  9. Andrew Ryan says:

    “refer to them with whatever term you like”

    Isn’t the medical term ‘foetus’? Why not stick to that.

    For your coma metaphor to even come close to working, the person in the coma would have to be attached to your body, and have your health interlinked with theirs.

    And can no one explain why abortions go up under GOP presidents, and down under Democrats? If you truly want to reduce the number of abortions, vote Democrat. But then of course you wouldn’t be able to control women’s rights, which is what you’re really interested in, not the unborn children like you claim.

    Reply
  10. Andrew Ryan says:

    “refer to them with whatever term you like”

    Isn’t the medical term ‘foetus’? Why not stick to that.

    For your coma metaphor to even come close to working, the person in the coma would have to be attached to your body, and have your health interlinked with theirs.

    And can no one explain why abortions go up under GOP presidents, and down under Democrats? If you truly want to reduce the number of abortions, vote Democrat. But then of course you wouldn’t be able to control women’s rights, which is what you’re really interested in, not the unborn children like you claim.

    Reply
  11. Tim D. says:

    In the case of an organ donor, specifically a donor providing an organ of which they have only one – the chance of them surviving after the provide biological thing A with what they need is virtually nil.

    People generally do not donate singular vital organs while they are still alive 0_0

    * Positive Choice – In the mother’s womb case, if the mother does NOT act, the in-womb-infant survives and gets to become an out-of-womb infant. In the organ donation case, if the organ donor does NOT act, the person in need of an organ will likely die. In other words, the mother has to make a positive choice and actually do something to CAUSE a death. The organ donor doesn’t have to do anything and the person who needs an organ still dies.

    Doesn’t matter; either way, a death is caused. One is a “crime” of omission, the other is a “crime” of action. Sounds to me like in this case, you’re only blaming the mother because you can (whereas you can’t blame the organ donor because there are “too many parties to prosecute”).

    That being said, not one of them could have survived on their own without the help of me and my wife’s body.

    That’s not the same thing at all; I meant strictly in a biological sense. Financial dependence is not the same thing as one’s body literally providing nutrients via the womb. If you mean to compare supporting a family emotionally and financially to the process that takes place in the womb, then you clearly aren’t very familiar with what goes on in the womb, exactly.

    By your reasoning, the moment an infant tranforms from being an in-womb infant to out-of-womb infant, they should simply be able to support themselves and survive as a grown man would without an ounce of help from anyone.

    I love how you guys keep arguing as though I support late-term abortions. You keep using the “fetus one minute/baby the next” argument, but that only works for abortions in the final stages of pregnancy (which I am clearly not arguing for).

    Next, you make the claim that a ‘fetus’ is not even a ‘person’ yet. That’s something you’ll have to argue for. You act as if it is a premise that I should accept on its face, not so. As far as I can tell, this cannot be true unless you use location or dependence in your definition of personhood.

    A fetus has no perception; a fetus does not even possess the capacity for self-awareness. It has no consciousness. It is not a person. It’s not automatically synonymous with a human being just because it has DNA; sperm and eggs have complete and unique DNA, so by that logic they are also human.

    So, it seems that, under the model you have set up, if we have no problem killing in-womb-infants (refer to them with whatever term you like), we can also not have any problem with the killing of out-of-womb infants. You’d at least be on rationally sound – albeit morally heinous – footing if you were consistent enough to follow your own logic to its obvious conclusion.

    Wrong again with your straw man, of course. Read above.

    Reply
  12. Bryan says:

    Tim:

    The crime of omission versus crime of action bit absolutely matters. In the womb case, there is a direct causal relationship between killer and killee. By way of analogy, holding a person with a healthy organ accountable for the death of a stranger who needs an organ is akin to holding me accountable for not getting out and stopping traffic on the busiest and most deadly part of the interstate I drive on every day because by NOT doing so someone could die. It’s ridiculous, and regardless of what kind of spin you try to put on it, it only takes a little thinking and intuition for us to realize this.

    As far as the dependence factor goes, I don’t especially care what you meant or think, I’m actually interested in fact. It is a fact that a newborn infant simply cannot survive without relying on the body (and time, and effort, and patience – in fact, this are the attributes that IMO make an out-of-womb infant more difficult and dependent than an in-womb-infant) of someone else. Much the same as how a coma patient can not survive without the things they receive from the bodies of others. To be clear, I am not talking about financial and emotional support, I’m talking about the direct demands of the bodies of those caring for infants (or coma patients). Remember our initial generalization.

    Biological thing A dies without something given to it from biological thing B. This generalization is true for all of the following scenarios.

    thing A = in-womb-infant; thing B = mother
    thing A = person with bad organ; thing B = person with good organ
    thing A = out-of-womb infant; thing B = people who use their bodies in the course of helping that infant survive
    thing A = coma patient; thing B = people who use their bodes in the course of helping that coma patient survive

    A fetus has no perception or possess the capacity for self awareness. I’m open to looking into the science behind this if you care to provide me some links, but based on personal anecdotal experience, very young out-of-womb infants also suffer from a deficiency in these areas. I know that Peter Singer agrees with me on this count at least, and given his scholarly career and standing, I’ll presume he’s got more than anecdotal experience supporting his conclusion. This is why he has been able to arrive at the logically sound – I’ll say it again, albeit morally heinous – conclusion that any infant less than about 27 days old should be a viable candidate for legal termination.

    It seems as though we’ve reached the point where you think you win if you just drop the ‘straw man’ bomb enough. I think of it as the ‘argumentum ad straw man! – you’re it’ in the spirit of this interaction in dumb and dumber:

    Lloyd: You’re it.
    Harry: You’re it.
    Lloyd: You’re it, quitsies!
    Harry: Anti-quitsies, you’re it, quitsies, no anti-quitsies, no startsies!
    Lloyd: You can’t do that!
    Harry: Can too!
    Lloyd: Cannot, stamp it!
    Harry: Can too, double stamp it, no erasies!
    Lloyd: Cannot, triple stamp, no erasies, Touch blue make it true.
    Harry: No, you can’t do that… you can’t triple stamp a double stamp, you can’t triple stamp a double stamp! Lloyd!
    Lloyd: [hands over ears] LA LA LA LA LA LA!
    Harry: LLOYD! LLOYD! LLOYD!

    Reply
  13. Bryan says:

    Andrew,

    If your facts are correct, I do find it surprising that there are more abortions under Republican rule than under Democratic rule, but it doesn’t much matter to me, because I do not commonly vote for Republicans.

    By the way, you’re notion that I – or anyone else like me – is only interested in suppressing women’s rights is something you just conjured up out of thin air. I don’t make that claim, and you accusing me of it is as ridiculous as me accusing you of only really being interested in population control and not women’s rights. In polite discourse and debate, opponents do not commonly invent and then address unfounded motives of one another, they simply address the arguments being offered.

    Reply
  14. Andrew Ryan says:

    “I do find it surprising that there are more abortions under Republican rule than under Democratic rule”

    I don’t. GOP’s are fundamentally selfish. It’s an ‘I’m alright Jack’ party. Under Democrats, women feel more able to take care of their children. Also, GOP follows a failed system of abstinence-based sex education. It doesn’t work, it leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy. Liberal countries, such as Scandinavian nations, have far more comprehensive sex education, and thus have far lower rates of teen pregnancy, and unwanted pregnancies in general.

    So when Clinton said ‘Make it legal, safe, and rare’, he meant it. And so does Obama.

    “In polite discourse and debate, opponents do not commonly invent and then address unfounded motives of one another, they simply address the arguments being offered.”

    So you’re accusing me of using a StrawMan? See how annoying it is? OK, I apologise if that is truly not your own view.

    If you don’t believe there’s any aspect of suppressing women’s rights from posters on this site (albeit, you claim not yourself), have a look at RC’s articles that are posted here. His horror of ‘feminists’ and how their ideas lead to lower birthrates. The implication being that women should be having children purely to keep up the population. This is basically seeing women as not intrinsically valuable in their own right, but only in as much as their reproductive value.

    Reply
  15. Bryan says:

    Andrew:

    I am not interested in arguing specifically for the GOP, but I will argue traditional conservatism versus traditional liberalism. Labeling traditional conservatism as fundamentally selfish is simply wrong. Traditional conservatism is fundamentally for the notion of smaller government – that is, individual liberty. Every single statistic I’ve ever seen shows that those who consider themselves traditionally conservative are far more voluntarily charitable (that is, they donate far more time and money to charities) than those who consider themselves traditionally liberal.

    Traditional liberalism elevates the notion of equality over that of individual liberty. I think there’s some definite value to this idea of equality, but I think it has become distorted. I (and most traditional conservatives) believe that equality should come in the form of opportunity – that is, everyone should have an equal amount of individual liberty. Liberals traditionally believe the equality should be of a different kind than an equality of opportunity, but a more forced equality, as in… I think person A should be equal to person B in some way (finances for example), so the government (which by definition has to be ‘big’ to do this) should step in and make person A be financially equal to person B.

    As for what you have to say about sex education versus abstinence education, how about this novel idea. GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY AND SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF EITHER KIND OF EDUCATION. This kind of education is the responsibility of the parents of the children being educated, not the government’s. Is it so infeasible to people these days to conceive of things like this being completely outside of the realm of what the government ought to do? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’ll want to teach your children how to put condoms on bananas and I’ll want to teach my children that the only 100% safe way to avoid becoming pregnant and/or contracting a venereal disease is to abstain. How long does either one of those two options take to teach them? Either of us could probably skip one sitcom and be done with it. Why in the world would anyone believe the government should or needs to play any role whatsoever when it comes to educating children in this manner?

    Reply
  16. Andrew Ryan says:

    “Traditional conservatism is fundamentally for the notion of smaller government – that is, individual liberty. ”

    Really? Then why all the homophobia? What happened to the notion of what someone does in their own bedroom is their own business? From where I’m sitting the Dem’s are the party of individual liberty. The GOP are the one’s trying to put their God into classrooms etc.

    “Every single statistic I’ve ever seen shows that those who consider themselves traditionally conservative are far more voluntarily charitable ”

    And yet child poverty, child mortality etc are all lower in liberal countries, due to the policies of liberal governments. Compare Europe to America. America loses out on all the ways one can calculate the health of a nation – higher deaths at birth, people dying younger too. So conservatives may give small amounts to charity, but the policies they support completely undermine the idea of them being charitable. Just like the attitude to teen pregnancy, there’s a complete disconnect between the outcome they claim to desire, and what they do to bring about that outcome.

    “the only 100% safe way to avoid becoming pregnant and/or contracting a venereal disease is to abstain.”

    Right, and the only 100% safe way to avoid automobile accidents is to abolish every car in the country. But that’s not feasible. And if you look at the failure of the abstinence campaign, it doesn’t work. Take all sex ed out of schools and teen pregnancy will rocket. Is that what you want?

    Reply
  17. Bryan says:

    “Really? Then why all the homophobia? What happened to the notion of what someone does in their own bedroom is their own business? From where I’m sitting the Dem’s are the party of individual liberty. The GOP are the one’s trying to put their God into classrooms etc.”

    I think you and I probably agree on more than you realize. I am not a member of the GOP. I am not interested in the government getting involved in the business of what people do in their bedrooms. As far as I’m concerned, the government has no authority whatsoever when it comes to acknowledging the validity of a homosexual or heterosexual relationship. I am also not interested in God being ‘put in’ the classrooms. Whether a public education system is even warranted is another debate entirely, but since we have one, I’m content to say I won’t push for God to be ‘put in’ the public classroom (in an official capacity – it is not the government’s responsibility to teach theology, it is the Church’s) if you won’t push for God to be banned from the public classroom (if individuals want to wear a necklace with a cross on it or recite a personal prayer quietly to themselves, they ought to be able to).

    By the way, you need to change your way of thinking in terms of understanding what I’m saying. I’m not proposing an abstinence campaign. I’m proposing the government do nothing, and then I do whatever I want in my household and you do whatever you want in yours.

    To be clear, I’ll be voting for the Constitution Party. You should check it out, I suspect there’s more than a few positions in that party that would interest you.

    Reply
  18. Tim D. says:

    As far as the dependence factor goes, I don’t especially care what you meant or think, I’m actually interested in fact. It is a fact that a newborn infant simply cannot survive without relying on the body…etc.

    You’re twisting my words here. And I’m full aware you could care less what I think, but I seriously doubt that it’s “facts” you are consulting in my absence. By your logic, anything that anybody does is bodily; emotions come from chemical reactions in the brain, so they are “bodily,” and not emotional. That’s ridiculous.

    …Much the same as how a coma patient can not survive without the things they receive from the bodies of others.

    The way a coma patient is dependent on others, and the way a child is dependent on the parents after birth, are both completely and undeniably different from the way a fetus is dependent on the mother. You can argue the details and twist words all you want, this will not change; it’s not a crime for a mother to tell her child not to contact her physically, and it’s not a crime for someone else — say, the father — to take the chlid out of the mother’s arms for whatever reason, given that he is not abducting the child or some other obviously criminal thing. The mother has a right to refuse to breastfeed the child, and this is not considered abuse or “murder,” because milk can be received elsewhere. If Christians want to complain about mothers taking fetuses out of their wombs, maybe they should provide environments (or other wombs) to which people can ship these fetuses in order to bring them to term, instead of forcing a woman to bring the baby to term against her will.

    Remember our initial generalization.

    You mean your generalization?

    It seems as though we’ve reached the point where you think you win if you just drop the ’straw man’ bomb enough.

    (1) I’m not dropping the bomb, I’m pointing out when you stuff words in my mouth. You keep making false deductions and attributing them to me, then attacking them; this is called a Straw Man, end of story.

    (2) I don’t know what you’re up to, but I’m certainly not in this to “win” anything. I don’t know exactly what you mean by that 0_0

    In polite discourse and debate, opponents do not commonly invent and then address unfounded motives of one another, they simply address the arguments being offered.

    And yet this is exactly what you do!

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’ll want to teach your children how to put condoms on bananas and I’ll want to teach my children that the only 100% safe way to avoid becoming pregnant and/or contracting a venereal disease is to abstain. How long does either one of those two options take to teach them?

    (1) I think we should teach both. I mean, it is true that the only way to 100% assure oneself of those things is to not have sex. But at the same time, it’s easy for a teenager to think, “I’m smart and I’m slick, I’ll be one of those kids that has sex and doesn’t get sick or pregnant/etc.,” because kids are generally ignorant of these kinds of things. So rather than risk an unwanted pregnancy (and thus an ensuing child that cannot be supported or properly cared for) or a venereal disease, why not educate them completely instead of based on partisan views?

    As far as I’m concerned, the government has no authority whatsoever when it comes to acknowledging the validity of a homosexual or heterosexual relationship.

    So you also think the same of heterosexual marriages. Great!

    I’m content to say I won’t push for God to be ‘put in’ the public classroom (in an official capacity – it is not the government’s responsibility to teach theology, it is the Church’s) if you won’t push for God to be banned from the public classroom (if individuals want to wear a necklace with a cross on it or recite a personal prayer quietly to themselves, they ought to be able to).

    I’m content with that same reasoning :)

    I’m proposing the government do nothing, and then I do whatever I want in my household and you do whatever you want in yours.

    Alright, but question: What about families where children are molested/raped/abused, and this comes as a result (or cause, depending on the situation) of a lack of a real understanding of what sex is and when/how/if it can be considered appropriate? Do you believe that sex education has the potential to protect children in such a way? Certainly you don’t believe that we should just leave these kinds of people be. Right?

    As I understand it, the reason we have a public education system to cover the fundamentals is basically because, in a capitalist society, success is based on business, which is based on specialty, which is based on familiarity/skill in a particular area. This requires a basic degree of education, and since not all families can afford such things on their own, a public school system gives them a basically free chance to succeed in a capitalist society. This promotes the survival of the society as a whole, for without workers (in any class, be it middle or lower or upper), the capitalist society cannot function. I think of it as a “shot in the arm” to help stimulate the growth of the society as a whole.

    Reply
  19. Bryan says:

    Tim:

    You say…
    “Alright, but question: What about families where children are molested/raped/abused, and this comes as a result (or cause, depending on the situation) of a lack of a real understanding of what sex is and when/how/if it can be considered appropriate? Do you believe that sex education has the potential to protect children in such a way? Certainly you don’t believe that we should just leave these kinds of people be. Right?”

    Fair enough. We would obviously agree that sexual abuse of a child is a morally heinous crime that should be prevented if possible and severely punished when it occurs. So again, I’m content for some party other than the child’s parents telling them something to the effect of “It is wrong for anyone to touch you and if someone tries, you should try to make them stop, get away, and tell someone you love and trust about it.” That being said, I disagree with your assumption that the government (presumably in the form of some person working at a public school) is the best entity to do so. It would make much more sense to have an extended family – aunts, uncles, grandparents, older cousins, etc. – who are around and available for discussing such subject matter. In short, this is not the government’s business, it is the business of some other private entity, be it extended family or some kind of extended social community such as a church.

    My disagreement with you in this case is based on verifiable fact by the way. According to a 2002 US Department of Education report, “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” It would seem odd to make school officials responsible for educating our children about sexual rights and wrongs in light of this information.

    Also, I’m curious if you feel comfortable in pushing your morality – that is is wrong to have sex with children – on someone else? I’m sure I’ve heard people like myself be described as intolerant for pushing our morality on others before. To be clear, in this case, I am sure it is wrong and have no problem whatsoever pushing that morality on another. I have no guilt complex about not being tolerant enough whatsoever. Can you say the same?

    Next, I would disagree with you in your conclusion that in a capitalist society success is based on business. More foundational than ‘business’ is the morality with which one operates his or her business. What good is your business venture likely to be if you run it like an immoral, dishonest schmuck that can’t keep his word or earnestly attempt to deliver on his promises? That being said, we don’t currently live in a capitalist society – so it may not be particularly applicable to our current societal context.

    Reply
  20. Bryan says:

    Tim, one more thing I forgot to ask.

    You said you think ‘we’ should teach them both – abstinence and safe sex. I want to be clear I understand what you are saying.

    Are you saying you will teach your children both and think I ought to teach my children both but am willing to allow me to teach them as I see fit?

    Or, are you saying that you think all children should be taught both, and if a parent like myself chooses to only teach abstinence, you are willing to ensure that my children learn both ways through some kind of force? Would you have it such that they were legally required in some fashion to learn both or would you grant me the liberty to teach them what I think they should be taught and leave it at that?

    Reply
  21. Tim D. says:

    Also, I’m curious if you feel comfortable in pushing your morality – that is is wrong to have sex with children – on someone else? I’m sure I’ve heard people like myself be described as intolerant for pushing our morality on others before. To be clear, in this case, I am sure it is wrong and have no problem whatsoever pushing that morality on another. I have no guilt complex about not being tolerant enough whatsoever. Can you say the same?

    There is so much reasoning that goes into the idea that it is “wrong” to have sex with children that I cannot explain it all here; the bottom line is that it’s very hard to arrive at any other conclusion than it is to follow common sense to the conclusion that, “Hey, screwing kids is bad.”

    Now, getting back to objectivity….in an objective sense, nothing can be “wrong” or “right” in and of itself, but again, that’s not necessary for us to agree to enforce this policy. Just because we don’t know that we’re “The Right Side” doesn’t mean we can’t believe that we are serving the interests of the children by supporting such an idea. Let me know if I need to explain this any further -_-

    Next, I would disagree with you in your conclusion that in a capitalist society success is based on business. More foundational than ‘business’ is the morality with which one operates his or her business. What good is your business venture likely to be if you run it like an immoral, dishonest schmuck that can’t keep his word or earnestly attempt to deliver on his promises? That being said, we don’t currently live in a capitalist society – so it may not be particularly applicable to our current societal context.

    Umm….a couple of good examples. Have you heard of Bill Gates? Donald Trump? Need I elaborate?

    Donald Trump has a reality show called “The Apprentice.” There have been multiple occassions on that show that promote undercutting opponents, tactically speaking — there was this one occasion awhile back where one team placed an order that they were supposed to pick up at a certain time. The other team tried to place a similar order only to find that the first team had ordered the last item in stock. So the second team, pretending to be the first team, went in and picked up the order and paid for it, only to leave the first team wondering what had happened because their order disappeared.

    As for Bill Gates….for the short and dramatic version, just watch Pirates of Silicon Valley.

    In any case, a person can hardly be called “moral” because he is successful; it is blatantly false to assume that hard morality will bring you to the top in business. Enron? Successfull; dishonest. Yes, there is a degree of honesty required to run a business in that you must agree to (and go through with) any deals you make….but to simplify the industry to that level is to ignore a lot of the shadier aspects of capitalism. In many cases, such “morality” can actually bring you down from a business standpoint.

    But again, morality is the type of thing you invoke when you are in a situation in which you could get away with something — because it is legal or widely accepted — and yet you do not. There are plenty of instances in which obviously objectionable business practices are allowed to pass, simply because it is common business practice. Would you say it is “moral” to place a giant superstore in a tiny city for the sole purpose of driving small competitors out of business, when the next city over would experience great economic benefits from such a store? That’s something that is widely accepted as “standard practice” in capitalism, and yet it puts a lot of small business owners out of jobs. Is that “moral” to yoU?

    Or, are you saying that you think all children should be taught both, and if a parent like myself chooses to only teach abstinence, you are willing to ensure that my children learn both ways through some kind of force? Would you have it such that they were legally required in some fashion to learn both or would you grant me the liberty to teach them what I think they should be taught and leave it at that?

    There were no further implications to what I said than what I said; however, I find it disturbing that you would withhold such valuable knowledge from someone who could not possibly be harmed by it. Why the fear of knowledge?

    Reply
  22. Tim D. says:

    Donald Trump has a reality show called “The Apprentice.” There have been multiple occassions on that show that promote undercutting opponents, tactically speaking — there was this one occasion awhile back where one team placed an order that they were supposed to pick up at a certain time. The other team tried to place a similar order only to find that the first team had ordered the last item in stock. So the second team, pretending to be the first team, went in and picked up the order and paid for it, only to leave the first team wondering what had happened because their order disappeared.

    P.S. The point of this was to mention that this action was approved by The Trumpster himself, who is a successful businessman by every definition. It’s the kind of tactic that is approved by one of the richest men in the world.

    Reply
  23. Andrew Ryan says:

    If the government is ‘staying out of everyone’s business’ then that should extend to staying out of women’s right to choose. But I’m guessing you’d equate that with me saying ‘Government should stay out of women’s right to murder people’.

    But my point is that it’s all very well to say that Govt teaching kids about sex is poking its nose in. But it affects everyone. You may be sure that you can teach your own kids properly about sex. But not everyone can guarantee they’ll do such a good job. You can say that’s the parents’ fault. But it’s the kids who’ll get pregnant, not the parents. Teaching children about sex in Europe – where I live – has led to children having sex LATER, not earlier. It has led to more mature attitudes to relationships, and fewer teen pregnancies. That’s what you want, right?

    Reply
  24. Bryan says:

    Andrew:

    European policies have led to declining birthrates such that if something doesn’t change, the Western version of civilization there will cease to exist and the Islamic variety imported from Northern Africa and the Middle East will replace it.

    I think highly enough of my civilization to want it to continue.

    Reply
  25. Bryan says:

    Tim: Why the fear of knowledge?

    This is quite possibly the easiest question you’ve asked me. I’m not afraid of all knowledge or knowledge in general. I am afraid of certain kinds of knowledge. For example, I am afraid of the kind of knowledge that would enable someone to create a biological or chemical disease that could target and kill people based on their race. This is not the kind of knowledge I think should be disseminated to anyone and everyone, if researched and discovered at all.

    Specific to our topic, one piece of knowledge would describe to my children the moral solution to a problem and the other piece of knowledge describes the immoral way to deal with the problem.

    By way of analogy, it could go something like this. I have a dog right now that I am not enjoying. It is more of an energetic country dog and I live in town, so the dog requires more energy than I want to give it. I could solve this problem in a couple of different ways. I could take it out and shoot it. Or, I could offer it up for adoption. I chose the latter. If my kids were seeking advice about what to do in this situation, what good reason would I have to even bother suggesting to them that shooting it in the head is a choice they should consider?

    Reply
  26. Bryan says:

    Andrew:

    If the government is ’staying out of everyone’s business’ then that should extend to staying out of women’s right to choose. But I’m guessing you’d equate that with me saying ‘Government should stay out of women’s right to murder people’.

    You anticipated correctly. This is not a principle I think you and I disagree with. My right to swing my fist stops at your nose. A person who takes pleasure of out murdering others (like a serial killer, to be clear, I’m not equating serial killers with mothers who choose to abort) is justly prevented by the government from indulging in this pleasure because it infringes upon the very right to live of those who the psychopath would kill. A slave owners desire to profit off of his slaves work is a situation where the government ‘steps in’ because it clearly infringes upon the rights of the slave. Like I said, in principle, I’m sure you and I don’t disagree on this point.

    So let’s be clear, where we disagree is the application of the principle. The real and only question to ask is, when a woman kills that thing in her womb, what exactly is it she is killing? If it is a real live human person, then we should we not view it as anything but the unjustified killing of an innocent person? If it is something else, like a fish or a dog or a fly or an ant or a flower or a tree… then big deal… we kill things like that all the time and don’t seem to have a moral issue with it.

    Reply
  27. Andrew Ryan says:

    Bryan, for all your claims of being an independent, you’re doing a good job of dealing in debunked right-wing talking points.

    In BOTH Europe and America, it is the non-whites keeping the population growing – eg Hispanics in the US, Asians in Europe. It isn’t abortion, feminism, liberalism, homosexuality that is affecting caucasion birth rates, it’s prosperity. A few decades ago the big worry in the US was the Irish out-breeding everyone else. But immigrants always have more kids until they settle in and get prosperous, then their birth rates stabilise too.

    In Europe the highest birthrates are in Iceland, Denmark and Norway. These are also the nations with the most comprehensive sex ed. It goes hand in hand with a culture that are supportive of child bearing – decent healthcare and maternity leave laws etc. The very ‘social liberalism’ that supposedly brings down birth rates.

    As for the breeding like rabbits Muslims, the truth is that all but one of the five most populous Muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Turkey) have rates of around 3 or below, and that they are falling rapidly in all five, with Iran (at 2.1) about to drop below replacement rate and to be overtaken by Iceland.

    The countries with the highest birthrates – dangerously high – such as Sub-Saharan Africa, are the ones with wide-spread ignorance of contraception and sexual education in general. You may acclaim the fact that they’re keeping the world’s populatio affloat, but it’s at the cost of massive infant mortality and starvation.

    Reply
  28. Andrew Ryan says:

    “If it is something else, like a fish or a dog or a fly or an ant or a flower or a tree… then big deal… we kill things like that all the time and don’t seem to have a moral issue with it.”

    Bryan, go and have a look through the LONG conversation that took place on the other abortion threads on this cite to hear my views and Tim’s on the ‘when does life begin’ issue. To sum up, a few days after conception you’ve got a cluster of cells inside the woman. It’s barely advanced from sperm (which we don’t have a moral issue with killing, right?). It’s has no brain function. It doesn’t even have a brain. It’s just a cluster of cells. But I’m getting back into that argument, and I’ve already explained my views on the subject many, many times on this cite.

    Reply
  29. Bryan says:

    Andrew,

    You still miss the point. You’re talking to me as if I am a person who is arguing against what you specifically want to do, that is against your opinion of what the government policy should be. I’m not arguing with you at this level. I’m making more of a meta argument. The simple fact is that your policy requires the immoral use of force by the government to enact. My meta argument says that force should rarely be used, and when it is, only in cases to protect the rights of others. Your mindset is that force should be employed in a manner such that rights of one group are depleted so that another group can of more of something.

    This meta argument is what gives me the moral high ground regardless of whether I’m arguing with a modern day Democrat or Republican. I am not arguing to infringe upon one’s rights in one way or another. I am arguing to never infringe upon someone’s rights. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

    As I’ve said, do what you like in your home with your children and I’ll do what I like in my home with mine.

    Reply
  30. Tim D. says:

    European policies have led to declining birthrates such that if something doesn’t change, the Western version of civilization there will cease to exist and the Islamic variety imported from Northern Africa and the Middle East will replace it.

    BS. There is no proof for this. Birth rates are low? So what? Population decline isn’t something that happens “BAM” all at once; in order for such a decline to continue it would have to continue across many, many generations. No societies are going to crumble simply because not everybody is out having kids for the sake of reproduction; that’s just a super-conservative scare-tactic, and believe me when I say you’re not the first person to spout this nonsense (without proof, much less).

    This is quite possibly the easiest question you’ve asked me. I’m not afraid of all knowledge or knowledge in general. I am afraid of certain kinds of knowledge. For example, I am afraid of the kind of knowledge that would enable someone to create a biological or chemical disease that could target and kill people based on their race. This is not the kind of knowledge I think should be disseminated to anyone and everyone, if researched and discovered at all.

    That’s great, but it doesn’t answer my question at all….

    By way of analogy, it could go something like this. I have a dog right now that I am not enjoying. It is more of an energetic country dog and I live in town, so the dog requires more energy than I want to give it. I could solve this problem in a couple of different ways. I could take it out and shoot it. Or, I could offer it up for adoption.

    Terrible analogy. This analogy is comparing a born infant with a dog; it does not relate the situation of the fetus at all, especially not in the early stages of development (which is the case I stand for).

    So let’s be clear, where we disagree is the application of the principle. The real and only question to ask is, when a woman kills that thing in her womb, what exactly is it she is killing? If it is a real live human person, then we should we not view it as anything but the unjustified killing of an innocent person? If it is something else, like a fish or a dog or a fly or an ant or a flower or a tree… then big deal… we kill things like that all the time and don’t seem to have a moral issue with it.

    False dichotomy; it’s either a “full human” or something like an “ant or flower or a tree.” It’s none of the above; it’s a fetus that has not and cannot develop on its own without receiving nutrition and incubation from its mother’s body. It does not have a consciousness; it does not have a will; it does not have a brain or a heart or a mind. It is not, in any sense of the word beyond “it has unique DNA,” human. But by that definition sperm and eggs are also humans….this is terribly incorrect.

    But another thing you keep saying that disturbs me deeply is this “it’s no big deal” line. It’s this false twist of either “it’s okay to swat ‘em like flies” or “they can’t be destroyed under any circumstances.” Nobody here is arguing that abortions are “okay” or “right” or “irrelevant” in the sense that any of those things (such as an ant or a tree) are. That’s a disturbingly ignorant thing to say, even coming from an Evangelical.

    Specific to our topic, one piece of knowledge would describe to my children the moral solution to a problem and the other piece of knowledge describes the immoral way to deal with the problem.

    The “immoral” way, in your opinion. Are we only allowed to judge what’s good for all based on your opinion? What if a parent thinks that something like molestation is okay? In their mind it’s justified; they are the parent, they have the say. How is that any different in your mind? Because it brings harm to someone? Well, the molester might easily just deny that claim (as you do here; you say that one action is “moral” and the other is not, a statement that is basically meaningless without a reason to support it).

    Your mindset is that force should be employed in a manner such that rights of one group are depleted so that another group can of more of something.

    I don’t have to be inside Andrew’s head to know this is a crock. You’re using those fancy label words again — Purposeful Misinterpretation, another popular Evangelical argumentative tactic, and a tired one at that. You know that the people who are pro-choice are not so because they want to “destroy someone’s rights;” and yet you say so anyway to be beligerent. You insist that this cluster of cells has more of a right to its mother’s body than the mother herself does. And based on what? The illusion of “moral high ground?” You still haven’t proven a single whit of your case that your morality is any more objective or “high up” than mine or anyone else’s, much less that an unformed fetus deserves anywhere near the same level of legal acknowledgement as a fully-formed, birthed human being; so far I just have your flagrant assertions to that effect, and nothing more.

    Reply
  31. Tim D. says:

    P.S.

    As I’ve said, do what you like in your home with your children and I’ll do what I like in my home with mine.

    That’s what the child molesters/beaters say….

    Reply
  32. Bryan says:

    It’s mind boggling to me that you have to equivocate so much that you can’t even agree to identify something as ‘human’ or ‘not human.’ I reiterate, any person with a normally functioning brain can identify any given thing as either ‘human’ or ‘not human’.

    Nobody here is arguing that abortions are “okay” or “right” or “irrelevant” in the sense that any of those things (such as an ant or a tree) are.

    What a relief. This statement of your actually betrays the fact that, even seemingly against your own will, your God-supplied natural moral intuition is functioning properly. The next obvious question for you is simply why is it not okay to terminate fetuses as readily as swat a fly? What is wrong with that?

    The “immoral” way, in your opinion. Are we only allowed to judge what’s good for all based on your opinion? What if a parent thinks that something like molestation is okay?

    This is not my problem, it is actually yours. My opinion matters not at all. My morals are founded upon an objective source. Yours are subjective and relative. I always start to hear that clown car music in my head when a moral relativist starts accusing a moral objectivist of having subjective morals.

    Terrible analogy. This analogy is comparing a born infant with a dog; it does not relate the situation of the fetus at all, especially not in the early stages of development (which is the case I stand for).

    You’re not understanding the comparison. Knowledge about shooting the dog in my analogy = knowledge about sex education. Knowledge about putting the dog up for adoption = knowledge about abstinence.

    As I’ve said, do what you like in your home with your children and I’ll do what I like in my home with mine.

    That’s what the child molesters/beaters say….

    What a cowardly and confused thing to say. To be clear, you’re stooping so low to compare my desire to educate my children with abstinence only instead of abstinence + sex education to me molesting my children? Is that what you’re saying. If so, you’ve officially reached one of those basic moral intuitions that are so profoundly fundamental in terms of a non-sociopath being able to understand the indisputable difference between right and wrong that you’re hardly worth bothering with.

    You insist that this cluster of cells has more of a right to its mother’s body than the mother herself does.

    This really isn’t that hard to understand. I’ve given good reasons for why this thing should be considered a human person. It’s quite easy to see. Either A – a person has its very life snatched away from it and snuffed out at a very, very early age or B – a mother deals with a temporary inconvenience such that the unborn person can even live. It’s not that I have no respect whatsoever for a woman’s right over her own body. If this ‘clump of cells’ as you refer to it were something like a cyst, then by all means, I confess, I would be a crazy person to attempt to claim the woman doesn’t have the right to get the cyst removed. But, as we’ve seen, this is not the case. We have good reason to believe, both scientifically (this clump of cells can be scientifically identified as a unique member of the human species) and philosophically that this thing is a person, simply a person in an early stage of development.

    It vexes me even further that people can assume in one breath that eliminating slavery was a good thing but allowing abortion to exist is alright. A very coherent argument can be made for why abortion is much worse than slavery. At least with slavery, the slave had some chance of being free some day, and even in his captivity, was able to enjoy moments of happiness and joy, albeit probably few and far between. With abortion, the life never even has a chance to live. The whole thing seems like the kind of thinking a 4 year old could understand. I can only imagine that I – and those like me – feel somewhat like William Wilberforce had to feel when he was arguing what he felt to be the obvious case for slavery.

    Evangelical

    I’m not Evangelical. I’m Reformed.

    Reply
  33. Tim D. says:

    What a relief. This statement of your actually betrays the fact that, even seemingly against your own will, your God-supplied natural moral intuition is functioning properly. The next obvious question for you is simply why is it not okay to terminate fetuses as readily as swat a fly? What is wrong with that?

    (1) How pretentious….so now we’re playing the assertion card again? Very well.

    (2) For the same reason it’s not okay to randomly amputate limbs and body parts without reason. It’s a medical procedure that, whether you like it or not, does have valid reasons for its existence.

    This is not my problem, it is actually yours. My opinion matters not at all. My morals are founded upon an objective source.

    Not actually at all; yours are also subjective. You choose to believe in a God and respect His morals (which may or may not even be real), and that is a subjective choice. So no, you’re no more objective than I am~

    I always start to hear that clown car music in my head when a moral relativist starts accusing a moral objectivist of having subjective morals.

    Wow. Good argument.

    [/not]

    You’re not understanding the comparison. Knowledge about shooting the dog in my analogy = knowledge about sex education. Knowledge about putting the dog up for adoption = knowledge about abstinence.

    Still a terrible analogy that doesn’t illustrate the point. Having sex before marriage is not anywhere near as atrocious of a crime as shooting a dog for that reason 0_0

    What a cowardly and confused thing to say. To be clear, you’re stooping so low to compare my desire to educate my children with abstinence only instead of abstinence + sex education to me molesting my children? Is that what you’re saying. If so, you’ve officially reached one of those basic moral intuitions that are so profoundly fundamental in terms of a non-sociopath being able to understand the indisputable difference between right and wrong that you’re hardly worth bothering with.

    (1) Then why are you still talking to me, eh?

    (2) Again with the assumptions and misinterpretations….yeesh. If you had been paying attention, what you would have grasped was not that I compared your choice in itself to molesting children. What I pointed out was that, using your reasoning there, we could support child molestation. I mean, it’s the parent’s choice what to teach their kids, what to do to their kids, right? They can do whatever they want in their own home, right? So what business is it of yours, by your reasoning, to interfere?

    This really isn’t that hard to understand. I’ve given good reasons for why this thing should be considered a human person. It’s quite easy to see. Either A – a person has its very life snatched away from it and snuffed out at a very, very early age or B – a mother deals with a temporary inconvenience such that the unborn person can even live.

    And in your world, since the cluster of cells is more important than the mother, she should be forced to bear this nine-month “inconvenience” against her will.

    It’s not that I have no respect whatsoever for a woman’s right over her own body. If this ‘clump of cells’ as you refer to it were something like a cyst, then by all means, I confess, I would be a crazy person to attempt to claim the woman doesn’t have the right to get the cyst removed. But, as we’ve seen, this is not the case. We have good reason to believe, both scientifically (this clump of cells can be scientifically identified as a unique member of the human species) and philosophically that this thing is a person, simply a person in an early stage of development.

    It’s a class of human DNA; it’s not a person. A person is more than DNA; or are you the type that would consider a brain floating in a jar a “human?”

    It vexes me even further that people can assume in one breath that eliminating slavery was a good thing but allowing abortion to exist is alright. A very coherent argument can be made for why abortion is much worse than slavery.

    And you call me delusional? Wow.

    At least with slavery, the slave had some chance of being free some day,

    The suffering of everyday life in slavery is far worse than the process of dying before one is able to coherently perceive any sensations. The fetus doesn’t even exist as a human being yet; it has no brain, no heart, no consciousness, no feelings. It is simply a cluster of cells that may or may not become a human one day. That you should compare abortion to slavery in this way deeply disturbs me….

    The whole thing seems like the kind of thinking a 4 year old could understand.

    Ah! HA! I get it. Because you’re implying that a 4-year old could figure it out, but I could not. So you’re implying that I’m less intelligent than a 4-year-old.

    Ha! Such wit.

    I can only imagine that I – and those like me – feel somewhat like William Wilberforce had to feel when he was arguing what he felt to be the obvious case for slavery.

    See, you guys’ problem is that you walk around acting like all the answers to everything are so obvious, and anyone who disagrees is either immoral, evil or stupid. And when you cite some common conservative talking points and everybody doesn’t jump out of their chairs and applaud and agree with you, you start with this whole Assertion Clause bit about how “it’s the obvious truth, even a 4-year-old could see that.” If you explained the issue inadequately to a 4-year-old, I suppose they could see it that way, but there are a lot of simple ways I could explain complex things to 4-year-olds that they could understand, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t more to any such issues than a 4-year-old could understand.

    You understand?

    Reply
  34. Bryan says:

    For the same reason it’s not okay to randomly amputate limbs and body parts without reason. It’s a medical procedure that, whether you like it or not, does have valid reasons for its existence.

    Seriously? It’s not okay for me to chop my pinky finger off with a meat cleaver if I so desire – for any reason or no reason? How not okay is that? Is it so not okay that the government should prevent me from doing that?

    Also, it’s obvious that there is a fundamental difference between ‘limbs and body parts’ and a fetus. A fetus is a uniquely identifiable living (I threw living in there to make a distinction between a fetus and your brain in a jar example) member of the human species. A limb is a part of another person’s body – demonstrably not a uniquely identifiable living member of the human species. In other words, categorically, a limb fits well into the rest of the examples I gave in that it is NOT HUMAN. A fetus on the other hand, IS HUMAN.

    The only plausible explanation for why anyone would ever think we should limit the amount of abortions that are performed is because they intuitively know that it is not right, they simply do not have what it takes to push their intuitive knowledge to its logical conclusion. I agree with you, we should limit the number of abortions. But, think about how bizarre it would sound if you made the claim that we should “limit the number of appendectomies” that occur in whatever ways we can. That’s just crazy talk – anyone can see that – because no one believes there’s any moral aspect whatsoever to whether or not we remove an appendix from a person. Fetuses matter – appendices don’t.

    Yours is a culture of death. Something – a thing I’ve argued is human – dies. You beam yourself to some logical bizarro world where something is somehow capable of being both human and not human at the same time to get around the intuition you have that helps you understand abortion should be prevented as much as possible.

    Mine is a culture of life. In my view, that thing gets to live. In your view, it has no chance of surviving.

    Furthermore, your view makes a mockery of many of the ideals so highly esteemed in Western civilization by so many. Notions such as self sacrifice for the good of others weaker and less fortunate than yourself. It is a natural human intuition to have respect for those that are willing to put themselves in harm’s way voluntarily to save the life of another. This is why we all have such admirable gut reactions for situations like a firefighter running into a burning building to save a child and shun blatant self-serving cowards as social pariahs. In your cowardly and selfish world, avoiding a temporary inconvenience is more important than preserving and protecting the life of another, weaker, more vulnerable person. What may be the worst is that you aren’t even decent enough to be ashamed of your narcissistic, callous, languid & cowardly position.

    Not actually at all; yours are also subjective. You choose to believe in a God and respect His morals (which may or may not even be real), and that is a subjective choice. So no, you’re no more objective than I am~

    My morals are based upon an objective source. Yours are not. It doesn’t get any simpler. No matter how many times you tell me the sky is not blue, it will not change the fact that the sky is blue.

    What I pointed out was that, using your reasoning there, we could support child molestation. I mean, it’s the parent’s choice what to teach their kids, what to do to their kids, right? They can do whatever they want in their own home, right? So what business is it of yours, by your reasoning, to interfere?

    This kind of contrarian foolishness gets us nowhere. It’s simply a waste of time for you to make me point out that it was obvious that ‘what I want’ is not the only parameter. Undergirding the entire conversation was the assumption – or at least I thought – that both of us shared the common ground that blatant and obvious wrongdoing committed against a child is unacceptable. I showed you enough respect to acknowledge that you thought as much, you simply did not afford me the same amount of respect.

    slave – a living human person with an opportunity to become free and control their own life some day

    terminated fetus – a living human person whose life is snuffed out very early in its development, therefore taking away its very life from it and giving no opportunity whatsoever to even live, let alone live freely

    There’s no way around that analysis. It’s about as plain as it can be.

    Reply
  35. Tim D. says:

    Seriously? It’s not okay for me to chop my pinky finger off with a meat cleaver if I so desire – for any reason or no reason? How not okay is that? Is it so not okay that the government should prevent me from doing that?

    I’m surprised that you can think this, and yet not think it okay for a woman to remove an offending cluster of cells from her uterus. How is chopping off your pinky for no reason any more acceptable?

    Also, it’s obvious that there is a fundamental difference between ‘limbs and body parts’ and a fetus. A fetus is a uniquely identifiable living (I threw living in there to make a distinction between a fetus and your brain in a jar example) member of the human species. A limb is a part of another person’s body

    Doesn’t matter. Would you have doctors take embryos out of the uterus of a mother and nurse it to term themselves? Or would you still force the mother to carry the embryo to term as a fetus and then an infant? If it’s the former, then so be it, we’ll have to agree to disagree that the doctor or mother has any such responsibility to do so; if it’s the latter, you must clearly admit that it’s not the life of the fetus that you wish to save, but that of the mother you wish to hinder.

    A fetus on the other hand, IS HUMAN.

    No, a fetus is not a human. It is an allocation of DNA from two other humans, and currently a part of one of those humans, a cluster of cells that may one day be a human. It is not human in the sense that you and I are.

    The only plausible explanation for why anyone would ever think we should limit the amount of abortions that are performed is because they intuitively know that it is not right, they simply do not have what it takes to push their intuitive knowledge to its logical conclusion.

    Wow, now you’re presupposing what I believe? Kind of rude (and ignorant at that); I’m standing right here….0_0

    But, think about how bizarre it would sound if you made the claim that we should “limit the number of appendectomies” that occur in whatever ways we can. That’s just crazy talk – anyone can see that – because no one believes there’s any moral aspect whatsoever to whether or not we remove an appendix from a person. Fetuses matter – appendices don’t.

    It’s not crazy to say that appendectomies are painful and unpleasant, and if there is a way to avoid them by avoiding the circumstances that contribute to them being necessary, then we should do all that we can to support those methods. Why would you think it is?

    Secondly, it’s a simple fact that in a perfect world, abortions wouldn’t happen. They’re not nice, they’re not positive, they’re not desirable. They’re a necessary evil.

    Yours is a culture of death. Something – a thing I’ve argued is human – dies. You beam yourself to some logical bizarro world where something is somehow capable of being both human and not human at the same time to get around the intuition you have that helps you understand abortion should be prevented as much as possible.

    I don’t have to think an embryo is human to think that abortion is an extreme method, or to think that abortions should be avoided if possible. Where would you get that idea? Or did you not know that the circumstances surrounding abortion can be quite painful for the parties involved? I mean, I imagine it would be crushing to realize that you were going to die if you didn’t terminate a fetus that had caused a fatal condition in your body. But I also imagine it would be crushing to, you know, die because of that.

    Mine is a culture of life. In my view, that thing gets to live. In your view, it has no chance of surviving.

    Wow, I guess you’re just better than me, huh?

    [/old]

    Seriously, can we get past the 5th grade here?

    Furthermore, your view makes a mockery of many of the ideals so highly esteemed in Western civilization by so many. Notions such as self sacrifice for the good of others weaker and less fortunate than yourself. It is a natural human intuition to have respect for those that are willing to put themselves in harm’s way voluntarily to save the life of another. This is why we all have such admirable gut reactions for situations like a firefighter running into a burning building to save a child and shun blatant self-serving cowards as social pariahs.

    Blah, blah, blah…translation: MY GOD IS BIGGER THAN YOUR GOD, I’M RIGHT AND YOU’RE WRONG WAAAAH!!

    In your cowardly and selfish world, avoiding a temporary inconvenience is more important than preserving and protecting the life of another, weaker, more vulnerable person. What may be the worst is that you aren’t even decent enough to be ashamed of your narcissistic, callous, languid & cowardly position.

    I’m gonna give you the BOD and assume some lowly troll is using your name, or something.

    My morals are based upon an objective source. Yours are not. It doesn’t get any simpler. No matter how many times you tell me the sky is not blue, it will not change the fact that the sky is blue.

    Except I can see that the sky is blue. I would not deny that. Your morality is nowhere to be seen; I can’t feel it, I am not bound by it, and I certainly don’t feel the need to respect or obey it in a legal sense.

    This kind of contrarian foolishness gets us nowhere. It’s simply a waste of time for you to make me point out that it was obvious that ‘what I want’ is not the only parameter.

    I point that out because it’s the only parameter you listed — “Let me do what I want in my house, let you do what you want in yours.”

    Undergirding the entire conversation was the assumption – or at least I thought – that both of us shared the common ground that blatant and obvious wrongdoing committed against a child is unacceptable.

    Agreed. But for what reason? You have given none.

    slave – a living human person with an opportunity to become free and control their own life some day

    Slave; a living human person who suffers greatly from day to day and who may or may not be able to live free someday

    Embryo; a cluster of tissue that is removed from its mother’s body for some reason or another, and as a result never develops a personal identity or consciousness or capacity for sensation/experience/reason and thus never really becomes a person in the true sense of the word

    See, I can do that, too.

    There’s no way around that analysis. It’s about as plain as it can be.

    Maybe it is so to you; but again, just because you can put a complicated issue into a -50 word sentence doesn’t mean it can really be explained in as few words. IOW: You making it simple, doesn’t make it simple. But then I suppose you’re the kind that wouldn’t mind letting the government step in to tell some woman that neither you nor they even know that she is going to be forced to carry her rapist’s baby to term and raise it on her own time and dollar and emotional supply. So I don’t guess it really bothers you. Oh, well~

    Reply
  36. Andrew Ryan says:

    “that both of us shared the common ground that blatant and obvious wrongdoing committed against a child is unacceptable”

    Why not campaign against all the religious people who have their baby boys circumcised then? Chopping off functioning parts of a boy’s weiner without his consent is fine as far as they’re concerned, and yet they’re against abortion.

    “a limb fits well into the rest of the examples I gave in that it is NOT HUMAN”

    What species is it then? Dog? Cat? You mean it is not A human. And neither is a fetus. That’s why it’s call a fetus.

    “Yours is a culture of death.”

    Right that’s why we support the party that lowers mortality rates. We believe in increasing quality of life for people who are actually alive.

    Reply
  37. Bryan says:

    It is an allocation of DNA from two other humans>/i>
    a cluster of cells

    I – and you by the way – are an allocation of DNA from two other humans. We’re both clusters of cells. Can you even bother trying to apply your standards in a way that doesn’t only argue for your conclusion?

    It is not human in the sense that you and I are.

    A newborn infant is not a human in the sense that you and I are. It can’t take care of itself. It is not conscious or self aware. For that matter, neither is an elderly person who can’t take care of themselves. Or a person in a coma. And on and on and on. By your reasoning, we have to have no problem with killing them either.

    Wow, I guess you’re just better than me, huh?

    No, I’m no better than you. I’m no more capable of redeeming myself in God’s eyes than your are. I just happen to be espousing the morally correct view here and you are not. And by morally correct view, I do not mean my opinion in the situation, I mean the side of the argument God would take.

    I’M RIGHT AND YOU’RE WRONG
    I obviously think I am right and you are wrong. Why else would I be arguing and trying to convince you (or anyone else reading this) for that matter?

    They’re not nice, they’re not positive, they’re not desirable. They’re a necessary evil.

    It seems as though I’ve either persuaded you or we have been in agreement all along. In your own words. They – abortions – are evil. I couldn’t have said it better myself. The only thing I’d add is a primary reason for the government to even exist is to prevent innocent victims from having evil perpetrated upon them. This is exactly why I think and argue that abortion should be illegal.

    Reply
  38. Tim D. says:

    A newborn infant is not a human in the sense that you and I are. It can’t take care of itself. It is not conscious or self aware. For that matter, neither is an elderly person who can’t take care of themselves. Or a person in a coma. And on and on and on. By your reasoning, we have to have no problem with killing them either.

    Wrong again, of course :) I might just stop stating this, since it’s becoming so obvious….

    An elderly person has a mind, a consciousness, a perception, the ability to sense and experience sensations, the ability to formulate his/her own thoughts, feelings and opinions. As does an infant. How much care a person needs to survive has nothing whatsoever to do with “how human” they are, and I don’t understand how you reached that conclusion at all.

    I just happen to be espousing the morally correct view here and you are not. And by morally correct view, I do not mean my opinion in the situation, I mean the side of the argument God would take.

    “God would take my side!”

    Wow, I’m convinced!

    [/not]

    I obviously think I am right and you are wrong. Why else would I be arguing and trying to convince you (or anyone else reading this) for that matter?

    It’s just so funny that you resort to blatanty asserting it in lieu of facts or support :D You throw around some tired cliche “points” and when they don’t change any minds, you get all pissed off. It’s amusing~

    It seems as though I’ve either persuaded you or we have been in agreement all along. In your own words. They – abortions – are evil. I couldn’t have said it better myself. The only thing I’d add is a primary reason for the government to even exist is to prevent innocent victims from having evil perpetrated upon them. This is exactly why I think and argue that abortion should be illegal.

    The word “evil” by itself has a different meaning than it does within the phrase “necessary evil.” In the latter, it’s more of a hyperbole to describe that, while it is not a “good” thing, it is sometimes necessary. Hence the term, “necessary evil.”

    But I’m sure you already knew that~

    Reply
  39. Tim D. says:

    P.S. But then again, amputation (or any form of invasive surgery) is not often regarded as a “good” thing; however, they are also respected as legitimate medical procedures. Nobody wants to have invasive surgery, but that doesn’t make it any less necessary.

    Reply
  40. Paul Henri says:

    I dare the post-modern “pro-choice” troopers to refute this analogy. The Nazi SS pro-choice troopers murdered their victims “compassionately” by preventing them from knowing they were going to be murdered instead of being showered, while the new pro-choice troopers murder their victims “compassionately” by getting at them in or shortly out of the womb.

    Check it out. Obama voted against a law designed to rescue babies that survive botched abortions. (If you insist, I will generate the citation.)

    This is tough stuff, but I am sure people of conscience will stop and think.

    Paul

    Reply
  41. Tim D. says:

    I dare the post-modern “pro-choice” troopers to refute this analogy. The Nazi SS pro-choice troopers murdered their victims “compassionately” by preventing them from knowing they were going to be murdered instead of being showered, while the new pro-choice troopers murder their victims “compassionately” by getting at them in or shortly out of the womb.

    Godwin’s Law, once again….always the Nazis with you folks!

    Seriously, though, just this once I’ll take on your pathetic Nazi correlation. But first….I want to say how despicable it is to repeatedly incite Nazi Germany in comparison to a mother who has to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason. The intent, for one, is completely different, and as much as you can argue that it’s not relevant, it is; the laws in our country do consider intent and circumstance (such as in a murder or manslaughter trial), and on those grounds the charges may be weakened or dropped altogether. Second, though, is that there is no requisite medical condition that requires patients be “gassed to death,” whereas there are real, genuine medical circumstances that sometimes, like it or not, require an abortion in order for the mother to survive. For example, there is a condition that might cause the fertilized egg to slide down into the fallopian tube and develop into a fetus there; if the fetus develops too far in this state, it can rupture the uterus and cause significant damage and, in some occasions, death.

    You can argue that the minorities “don’t count” because they are so rare, but I prefer to take all of these people’s lives into considerations, not just the ones that don’t actually exist yet.

    This is tough stuff, but I am sure people of conscience will stop and think.

    It is tough for me to think how easy it is for you to just throw around Nazi references (terrible ones, at that) to compare with mothers who have abortions. I understand this is a heated issue, and I respect flaming opinions, but don’t you think you’re crossing the line just a little?

    Reply
  42. chris says:

    Frank, Doesn’t the Bible supports the freedom of choice for an individual? “Behold, Ive placed before you life and death, blessing and curses, therefore CHOOSE life that you and YOUR seed may live”.(Deut.30:19). Acoording to Genesis, when man decided to partake of the tree of which God told them not to eat, did God come and put a stop to the disobedience? or did He allow them to CHOOSE their own actions? Didn’t the Bible in the book of Joshua states,”CHOOSE ye this day whom ye shall serve? Does this mean that God is “Pro Choice” while being “Pro Life”? meaning that His preference for us is life but He wants US to make the choice instead of the Government mandating it on us? Please reply.

    Reply
  43. chris says:

    Frank, I have another question, doesn’t seem like the amount of abortions, along with gay adoptions have increased over the past eight years? Here, in Florida, we have more gay communities than ever before and it seem to all happen while having a President who is ‘pro-life’ and against the gay agenda. Explain this please.

    Reply
  44. Frank Turek says:

    Chris,

    There’s a difference between choosing God and choosing murder! We have the free will to do both, but God only wants us to choose him not murder. Moreover, he put governments in place (see Rom. 13) to prevent people from doing evil to one another– murdering one another. Do you think the government should allow your neighbor to “choose” to murder you?

    With regard to abortion and homosexuality, the abortion rate has gone down under Bush; he did pass the partial birth abortion ban. Moreover, he prevented the ENDA which would have forced preferential treatment for homosexuals even in churches (see video).

    The question we are facing now is should we elect someone who wants to remove all restrictions against abortion and have you pay for it; remove all protections for marriage; and, in Obama’s own words, wants to “use the bully pulpit” to advance homosexuality in society. Would Jesus vote for that?

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  45. Andrew Ryan says:

    McCain’s been divorced. How is he protecting marriage? And how is preventing gays from marrying ‘protecting’ marriage? That’s the same argument they used to use to outlaw inter-racial marriage.

    Reply
  46. Frank Turek says:

    Andrew,

    No, race is irrelevant to marriage—gender is essential to it. There is nothing wrong with interracial marriages because men and women are designed for one another regardless of their racial background. But same-sex marriage is harmful because the human body was simply not designed for same sex relations. Homosexuals pay a high physical price for contradicting that design. So our marriage laws should be color blind but not gender blind.
    Furthermore, interracial marriage was opposed without any valid grounds. Opponents hid their prejudice with false speculation about birth defects and the like. Since all racial groups interbreed, such problems do not exist. In other words, there really is no such thing as interracial marriage because there is only one race–the human race. There is interethnic marriage which poses no physical problems. However, same-sex couples don’t breed at all, and their unions are often unhealthy.
    Ironically, it’s not conservatives, but same-sex marriage proponents who are reasoning like racists. Instead of asking the state to recognize the preexisting institution of marriage, homosexuals are asking the state to define marriage. Well, that is exactly the line of reasoning racists used in their effort to prevent interracial marriage. Racists wanted the state to define marriage as only between same-race couples, instead of having the state recognize what marriage already was—the procreative union of a man and a woman regardless of their racial/ethnic background. While racists and homosexuals may want to alter the legal definition of marriage, they cannot alter the laws of nature that helped produce the recognition of legal marriage in the first place.

    The above is adapted from my new book on SSM.

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  47. Frank Turek says:

    BTW, McCain called his behavior with his first wife, “his greatest moral failure.” On the other hand, Obama wants to take proactive steps to destroy what is the foundation of civilized society– natural marriage.

    Reply
  48. Andrew Ryan says:

    “No, race is irrelevant to marriage—gender is essential to it.”

    You might as well assert “Gender is irrelevant to marriage, race is essential to it.”

    “But same-sex marriage is harmful because the human body was simply not designed for same sex relations. ”

    The human body isn’t designed at all. This is simply assertion on your part with no evidence to back it up. Anyway, a gay could easily point to the specific location of the male g-spot as evidence against that particular argument. Furthermore, not all gays have anal sex, and some straight couples do. Is your argument agains anal sex or gays in general? Some gays don’t like anal sex, and restrict themselves to activities for which there is no “high physical price” to pay.

    There are lots of things you could assert that the human body isn’t ‘designed’ to do, based on the health of those who do it. People who eat lots of beef are more likely to get certain types of cancer. It doesn’t mean eating beef is immoral. Or that beef-eaters shouldn’t marry.

    “Furthermore, interracial marriage was opposed without any valid grounds. ”
    Sounds familiar. I’m sure they thought they had moral backing, same as you do.

    Finally, how is Obama ‘destroying natural marriage’? He’s not stopping McCain marrying and remarrying as many times as he wants to. He’s not coming up with any rules that would have prevented Ronald Reagan divorcing to marry Nancy. ‘Natural marriage’ would stay just as it was.

    Secular blessings to you too – It looks like a win for Obama tonight, and I’m glad that you’ll one day know how wrong your objections were.

    Reply
  49. Tim D. says:

    There’s a difference between choosing God and choosing murder! We have the free will to do both, but God only wants us to choose him not murder. Moreover, he put governments in place (see Rom. 13) to prevent people from doing evil to one another– murdering one another. Do you think the government should allow your neighbor to “choose” to murder you?

    The difference is, this same tired analogy only holds if we prove that a fetus/embryo is the same thing as a born/developed human being. Mind you (for technicality’s sake), I’m not talking about the last few minutes before the baby is actually born; I’m talking about pre- to mid-development stages, before it is capable of such things as consciousness and awareness and perception.

    The question we are facing now is should we elect someone who wants to remove all restrictions against abortion and have you pay for it; remove all protections for marriage; and, in Obama’s own words, wants to “use the bully pulpit” to advance homosexuality in society. Would Jesus vote for that?

    (1) I think Jesus would put a little more thought into it than you do, not that it matters what I think about it.

    (2) I don’t care what he would vote for; it’s my vote, not Jesus’. If he wants it, then maybe he should have cleared that up when he wrote the Constitution.

    …oh, wait…

    Opponents hid their prejudice with false speculation about birth defects and the like.

    Just like with homophobes; for example, these statistics about “being gay making you more prone to AIDS;” an argument you cited yourself, Turek, in spite of the obvious fact that this is an argument against sexual promiscuity, and not homosexuality (and also, it conveniently ignores the fact that married couples are generally the antithesis of sexual promiscuity; if a married partner is promiscuous, then you wouldn’t hold that against the institution of marriage, would you?).

    However, same-sex couples don’t breed at all, and their unions are often unhealthy.

    And we’re back to assertion. How are they unhealthy? Can you explain how they are “unhealthy” in any way that could not also be applied to same-sex couples doing the same things?

    he procreative union of a man and a woman regardless of their racial/ethnic background.

    Marriage has nothing to do with procreation; married couples are not required or expected to have children, although they are free to do so if they wish (and it is fairly common practice).

    While racists and homosexuals may want to alter the legal definition of marriage, they cannot alter the laws of nature that helped produce the recognition of legal marriage in the first place.

    Hah, nice little meme here, comparing homosexuals to racists. Despicable, but it shows effort.

    BTW, McCain called his behavior with his first wife, “his greatest moral failure.” On the other hand, Obama wants to take proactive steps to destroy what is the foundation of civilized society– natural marriage.

    Oh, well then that makes it okay.

    [/not]

    What I cannot understand is these assertions you continue to make about “defining marriage.” “It won’t be special if we let gay dudes get married! We won’t be the Married Elite anymore; just anyone will be able to marry!” Is that what it’s about? Is it really about having social value? If I ever do get married, that won’t be why I do it, I can tell you that now. Does that mean I’m “doing it wrong” by your standards?

    Reply
  50. Andrew Ryan says:

    “However, same-sex couples don’t breed at all,”

    Neither do women who get married over the age of 50. Are you saying older women shouldn’t be allowed to marry, given that they’re not going to ‘breed’? John McCain and his second wife – they haven’t ‘bred’ either, have they? Does that mean God condemns their union?

    You could argue that it’s God’s will for gays not to have children, otherwise he’d have made it possible for them to do so. Therefore, in complaining that gays can’t reproduce, YOU are going against the will of God.

    John McCain may regret his moral failing in the failure of his first marriage, but he’s still happy to benefit from marrying a multi-millionairess. It’s easy to express regret for a past failing whilst still enjoying the benefits of it.

    Reply
  51. Paul Henri says:

    People have an instinct for murder, which many try to redefine as choice insofar as abortion is concerned. Let’s examine a real-life fact. Nanking. This is a city in China that the Japanese destroyed and tortured early in WWII. Some call it the rape of Nanking because of all the witnessed rapes. There is a movie, Nanking, that sets out the facts with eyewitness Japanese and Chinese. At least one story is relevant here. The Chinese man (crying) described how a Japanese soldier stuck his bayonet into the anus of his infant brother and threw him aside; the infant managed to crawl back to his mother. The mortally-wounded mother breast-fed her baby in an attempt to comfort him.

    If anyone has any doubts about the character of the Japanese (human) soldier in WWII, let me say that my Marine Daddy saw unbelievable Japanese atrocities.

    Reply
  52. Andrew Ryan says:

    Thanks Paul, do you want to hear a load of stories of Christians torturing, murdering and lynching black men in the Deep South?

    Reply
  53. Paul Henri says:

    But how is the murder of the Nanking infant different from an abortion or a partial birth abortion or the murder of an infant that survived an abortion, as Obama is in favor of?

    Reply
  54. Tim D. says:

    But how is the murder of the Nanking infant different from an abortion or a partial birth abortion or the murder of an infant that survived an abortion, as Obama is in favor of?

    Well, for one, I don’t know any abortion procedures that involve sodomizing a baby with a beatstick. Also, baby =/= fetus.

    Reply
  55. Chris says:

    But Frank, the question hasn’t been answered. Does God allow CHOICE? If a woman wants to terminate the life inside of her, would God stop her or allow HER to make that CHOICE? (Based on Deut. 30:19) And why do most christians consider Obama a muslim or a non-christian after He spent 20 yrs. in church and confessed a born-again experience ( like Bush), while considering McCain a christian while He never confessed any church attendance or a born-again experience?(neither Palin)

    Reply
  56. Chris says:

    Another question, is Bush really Pro-life? The administration misled us into a war were there was no WMD, while Cheney’s company along with a few others profited GREATLY, and innocent blood was shed,(both American and Iraqi) to the tune of about 100,000 dead and still counting. How can this be a pro-life decision? Was this war really necessary? Did Bush USE the two moral issues that he knew Evangelicals would focus on to distract us and win our votes while on the other hand, taking full advantage of his position of power to make these kind of decisions? Are we better off as Americans today than we were 8 years ago?

    Reply
  57. Tim D. says:

    And why do most christians consider Obama a muslim or a non-christian after He spent 20 yrs. in church and confessed a born-again experience ( like Bush), while considering McCain a christian while He never confessed any church attendance or a born-again experience?(neither Palin)

    I consider a few possibilities for this:

    (1) They really are just that stupid; the simple fact being that no Muslim would ever sit in on a Christian service as extreme as that of Wright. If they did, he/she would be the most tolerant Muslim I’ve ever seen, thus they would not be a source of uncertainty for me (and shouldn’t be for Christians, either, as some 80% are far less extreme than that).

    (2) They’re playing along with McCain’s attempt at Swift Boat politics; just grabbing what they can and flinging it everywhere in hopes that it will catch on, and then when it does, wringing it dry until (a) nobody believes it anymore because it’s been in the public circle for so long that enough people have actually done the research, or (b) nobody cares anymore, or (c) it turns out to be true (which it didn’t).

    (3) They’re just looking for an excuse to justify their racism against Obama. Same deal with this “Hussein” nonsense. As though the man had any control over his name (or as if he should feel the need to change it, or to have any power over it; no one should be ashamed of their cultural lineage based solely on what it is, and anyone who would expect Obama to recant in that sense should be ashamed of themselves).

    Reply
  58. chris says:

    Now, I’m hearing the unofficial word in some religious circles that Obama is the antichrist, what is your take on this? Frank.

    Reply
  59. Tim D. says:

    Now, I’m hearing the unofficial word in some religious circles that Obama is the antichrist, what is your take on this? Frank.
    :D Are you joking?! Because that is hilarious, indeed~ The antichrist? Are you for real? Man, the Republican arguments get worse every year….

    Whatever. I’ll just be glad in four years when I can come back and point out that the world’s still here, everybody’s not dead yet, and we all still have our fundamental constitutional rights.

    Reply
  60. Gary says:

    Andrew stated:
    [i]Anyway, a gay could easily point to the specific location of the male g-spot as evidence against that particular argument. Furthermore, not all gays have anal sex, and some straight couples do. Is your argument against anal sex or gays in general? Some gays don’t like anal sex, and restrict themselves to activities for which there is no “high physical price” to pay.

    There are lots of things you could assert that the human body isn’t ‘designed’ to do, based on the health of those who do it. People who eat lots of beef are more likely to get certain types of cancer. It doesn’t mean eating beef is immoral. Or that beef-eaters shouldn’t marry.”[/i]

    First of all, the ability to identify the location of the g-spot, or whether or not people engage in anal sex are simply rabbit-trail arguments and are not the issue. What is at issue, is first, which of the two lifestyles perpetuates the species and second, which serves as a viable foundation for society?

    As to the perpetuation of the species, moral argument aside and even taking from evolution, those traits that do not ensure the survival of the species are discarded and only those that do ensure survival are maintained. Speaking of function alone, homosexuality, not only does not ensure the survival of the species, it in fact it works in direct opposition and therefore must be discarded as an unnatural and unacceptable union.

    There is only one obvious answer and it is that only the heterosexual union provides for its continuation of the species. In this regard, it doesn’t matter if the male/female union was created by God to do so, or if it is merely a built-in mechanism of evolution. Therefore, homosexuality is not only unhealthy, but functionally it has a genocidal affect on the entire human race. And if continuation of the species is not the foremost consideration, then please tell me what is?

    Considering race vs. gender, Male/Male, or Female/Female sexual unions of any race combination will never result in offspring therefore, reducing such unions as unnatural and opposed to human survival. Conversely, Male/Female sexual unions of any race combination will always result in offspring, barring any reproductive physical limitations.

    Lastly, I can’t imagine that you are actually trying to make a moral comparison between the ‘unhealthy’ nature of homosexuality to say, eating a ‘hot dog’. Eating beef, while I can agree it is not the healthiest choice, it does not innately by function prevent the continuation of the species. A bit on the weak side of persuasion there I’m afraid.

    Reply
  61. Gary says:

    Chris stated:
    “Frank, Doesn’t the Bible supports the freedom of choice for an individual? “Behold, Ive placed before you life and death, blessing and curses, therefore CHOOSE life that you and YOUR seed may live”.(Deut.30:19). Acoording to Genesis, when man decided to partake of the tree of which God told them not to eat, did God come and put a stop to the disobedience? or did He allow them to CHOOSE their own actions? Didn’t the Bible in the book of Joshua states,”CHOOSE ye this day whom ye shall serve? Does this mean that God is “Pro Choice” while being “Pro Life”? meaning that His preference for us is life but He wants US to make the choice instead of the Government mandating it on us? Please reply.”

    Chris,

    I realize you were directly asking Frank this question, but it caught my interest so:

    I wholeheartedly agree that the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual. Each will stand before God and give an account of their life. I will also say that all the legislation in the world will not change the heart of an individual. However, where I break with your reasoning is demonstrated throughout the Old Testament. Whenever Israel (nationally speaking) broke from God’s law and acted in disobedience, God judged the nation, often resulting in enslavement by some other nation e.g. Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, etc…

    For anyone that has read the bible there is no escaping the fact the God has ordained life and holds it very dearly to His heart. (Jeremiah 1:5) “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” Nationally speaking, we cannot continue to hold in contempt that which God has ordained and think that He is winking at our immoral CHOICES as a nation. Galations 6:7 “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” As Frank stated, “Moreover, he put governments in place (see Rom. 13) to prevent people from doing evil to one another– murdering one another. Do you think the government should allow your neighbor to “choose” to murder you?”

    The bible clearly states, that God establishes government. It is only blinding pride and arrogance that allows us to believe that God will not deal with our nation if we continue to dishonor His mandate to protect all of our citizens, in, or outside the womb. As reasonable as your position is, regarding personal responsibility, I would submit that you are neglecting to recognize our national responsibility as well.

    Reply
  62. Tim D. says:

    First of all, the ability to identify the location of the g-spot, or whether or not people engage in anal sex are simply rabbit-trail arguments and are not the issue. What is at issue, is first, which of the two lifestyles perpetuates the species and second, which serves as a viable foundation for society?

    The fallacy here is that you assume it is the responsibility of every member of the species to reproduce “for the good of the hive,” so to speak. This is not the case; people are allowed to choose if they want to reproduce or not, both in government and in morality. There is no obligation for an individual to reproduce; although it is our instinct to do so, and so it is very very likely that a significant portion of the population will do so anyway. There will never be a risk of any kind related to humans “not reproducing enough” as a result of homosexual activity; it simply isn’t significant enough on a species-scale level.

    Speaking of function alone, homosexuality, not only does not ensure the survival of the species, it in fact it works in direct opposition and therefore must be discarded as an unnatural and unacceptable union.

    Again, you’re assuming that there is some responsibility here — some obligation — to reproduce. And it does not work in direct opposition to reproduction; that would be murder you’re thinking of. Homosexuality does not erase life that already exists, and so it does not run counter to the creation of life.

    There is only one obvious answer and it is that only the heterosexual union provides for its continuation of the species.

    Is this the only ground on which you value heterosexual marriage?

    Therefore, homosexuality is not only unhealthy, but functionally it has a genocidal affect on the entire human race. And if continuation of the species is not the foremost consideration, then please tell me what is?

    Wrong, oh so wrong….the only way for homosexuality to be “genocidal” would be if every single person were to engage in a homosexual relationship simultaneously, and for a long enough duration that the current generation would expire without reproducing. I haven’t seen any statistics that even begin to imply that this is anywhere near the case.

    Considering race vs. gender, Male/Male, or Female/Female sexual unions of any race combination will never result in offspring therefore, reducing such unions as unnatural and opposed to human survival.

    On those grounds, you would then have to believe that we should not allow women who cannot bear children to marry. We would have to say the same of sterile men.

    Eating beef, while I can agree it is not the healthiest choice, it does not innately by function prevent the continuation of the species.

    No more so than homosexuality does, anyway 0_0

    It is only blinding pride and arrogance that allows us to believe that God will not deal with our nation if we continue to dishonor His mandate to protect all of our citizens, in, or outside the womb.

    Actually, I think that’s called “disbelief,” or “discourse,” or “dissent.”

    Reply
  63. Andrew Ryan says:

    Gary: “First of all, the ability to identify the location of the g-spot, or whether or not people engage in anal sex are simply rabbit-trail arguments”

    Exactly, so why do Christians on this board use stupid arguments about whether or not gays are ‘a good fit’? I’m glad you dismiss such arguments.

    I’m interested to see you saying that people who cannot reproduce shouldn’t marry. Are you going to campaign to prevent women over 50 getting married?

    Reply
  64. Andrew Ryan says:

    “And if continuation of the species is not the foremost consideration, then please tell me what is?”

    This is one of the most disturbing things I’ve read on this board. We don’t run countries on some kind of ‘eugenics’ system. We value human beings for their own sake, not their reproductive value.

    How’s about making human happiness and freedom our foremost consideration? You know, freedom from fear, and all that. No-one has to have kids if they don’t want to. You seem to be edging towards a system where people are obligated to reproduce. Count me out. I hate to invoke Godwin’s Law, but we’ve seen this happen before in the last century – it starts with promoting the family (a good thing) and ends with forcing women to have children and executing gays, all while envoking a God who apparently approves.

    Reply
  65. Gary says:

    Andrew: “Exactly, so why do Christians on this board use stupid arguments about whether or not gays are ‘a good fit’? I’m glad you dismiss such arguments.

    I’m interested to see you saying that people who cannot reproduce shouldn’t marry. Are you going to campaign to prevent women over 50 getting married?”

    Go ahead a make some noise, because I’m not hunting wabbit today. Nice twist of words, but the arguments I dismissed were your own.

    I’m curious, with whom, or what exactly are gays ‘a good fit’?

    Better yet, can a society built on homosexuality survive?

    Reply
  66. Gary says:

    Andrew: “This is one of the most disturbing things I’ve read on this board. We don’t run countries on some kind of ‘eugenics’ system. We value human beings for their own sake, not their reproductive value.”

    Perhaps you missed what I am saying. I am not disputing the intrinsic value of human life. I will leave that endeavor to the Pro-Abortion crowd. I am specifically considering homosexual union and whether or not it is a valid means of continuing the species and, foundation for society.

    Andrew: “How’s about making human happiness and freedom our foremost consideration? You know, freedom from fear, and all that. No-one has to have kids if they don’t want to. You seem to be edging towards a system where people are obligated to reproduce. Count me out. I hate to invoke Godwin’s Law, but we’ve seen this happen before in the last century – it starts with promoting the family (a good thing) and ends with forcing women to have children and executing gays, all while envoking a God who apparently approves.”

    The obvious fact is that if human life does not continue then, the pursuit of happiness and freedom is a mute point. That is why the continuation of the species is the foremost consideration. You must have life to enjoy it. There is an intrinsic hierarchy of human experience. First, you must be alive, then, you must have cognitive awareness, etc… Having life is where it all begins and homosexuality does not provide life. That is an exclusive benefit of heterosexuality.

    Also, I think it is laughable when atheists presume to speak for the God they say doesn’t exist, “a God who apparently approves”. How would you know what God approves or disapproves of? I thought He was not on the menu for your consideration. If you’re going to make flippant remarks about God at least have the integrity to cite proof of The Almighty’s positions on the topic i.e. chapter and verse.

    I agree with you, “no one has to have kids if they don’t want to.” But you see, that assertion applies to heterosexuals as well, so that was not my point in the first place. I am not suggesting that anyone, especially government has the right to force some kind of reproductive program on people.

    Andrew: “it starts with promoting the family (a good thing) and ends with forcing women to have children and executing gays.”

    Wow, what a slippery slope. Again, I agree with you, family is a good thing. BUT, forcing women to have children? Executing gays? Perhaps under some deranged dictatorship, however your colossally presumptive progression doesn’t have anything to do with what I am saying. Again, what I am asserting is that homosexuality, as FORM of human union (not the people, the form of union) first, does not contribute to the human race in regards to the perpetuation of the species, and secondly as a viable means on which to build society.

    Reply
  67. Andrew Ryan says:

    “How would you know what God approves or disapproves of?”

    Because people like you are always making the claims.

    “I’m curious, with whom, or what exactly are gays ‘a good fit’?”
    Err, each other? Certainly they’re not a good fit with heterosexuals. It wasn’t me who brought the question up, it was a Christian on this board.

    “Go ahead a make some noise, because I’m not hunting wabbit today. Nice twist of words, but the arguments I dismissed were your own.”
    In other words you’ve got no answer.

    “The obvious fact is that if human life does not continue then, the pursuit of happiness and freedom is a mute point. ”

    A person can pursue happiness in their own lifetime, whether or not they have kids.

    Reply
  68. Gary says:

    Tim: “The fallacy here is that you assume it is the responsibility of every member of the species to reproduce “for the good of the hive,” so to speak. This is not the case; people are allowed to choose if they want to reproduce or not, both in government and in morality. There is no obligation for an individual to reproduce; although it is our instinct to do so, and so it is very very likely that a significant portion of the population will do so anyway. There will never be a risk of any kind related to humans “not reproducing enough” as a result of homosexual activity; it simply isn’t significant enough on a species-scale level.”

    Actually the fallacy lies with assuming that I am speaking to the responsibility of every member of the species – Not the issue, not my focus. My assertions are aimed at homosexuality as a means of human union. In other words, what are the byproducts of a homosexual union, do they contribute or take-away from humankind? At least for this conversation, I am not considering the people. If I were, I would not suggest that I, or anyone else has the providence to dictate whether an individual reproduces or not, “for the sake of the hive”, to barrow the analogy. Again, I am strictly looking at the validity of homosexuality as a mechanism for human perpetuation as a species and as a component of the foundation on which to build society.

    I agree with you, I likewise feel confident that through heterosexual union we will not find ourselves in short supply of generations to come.

    Tim: “Again, you’re assuming that there is some responsibility here — some obligation — to reproduce. And it does not work in direct opposition to reproduction; that would be murder you’re thinking of. Homosexuality does not erase life that already exists, and so it does not run counter to the creation of life.”

    Sorry, but there is a hole in your logic here. I am purposely not thinking of murder because the exact opposite of initiating life is, not initiating life – not extinguishing it. When a couple considers having a child the question is not, should we have a child, or murder it. The consideration is, do have a child or not have a child. Therefore, to not create life does in fact “run counter to the creation of life”, and this is a direct byproduct of the homosexual union. Homosexual union = no creation of life.

    Tim: “Is this the only ground on which you value heterosexual marriage?”

    Of course not, I likewise value many other aspects of heterosexual marriage such as love, connection, friendship, etc… I love my wife not because she has given birth to our two children, but because of who she is as a person. However, while procreation is not the only valuable aspect of heterosexual marriage, it is the component by which humankind continues to exist. I would say there is immense value in that. Wouldn’t you?

    Tim: “Wrong, oh so wrong….the only way for homosexuality to be “genocidal” would be if every single person were to engage in a homosexual relationship simultaneously, and for a long enough duration that the current generation would expire without reproducing. I haven’t seen any statistics that even begin to imply that this is anywhere near the case.”

    After further consideration, I absolutely agree with you. Homosexuality is not genocidal. By definition, genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. You must have a life in order to exterminate it. And as I demonstrated above, homosexuality does not provide life therefore, cannot have a genocidal affect on it. Excellent point, thank you for catching it.

    Tim: “On those grounds, you would then have to believe that we should not allow women who cannot bear children to marry. We would have to say the same of sterile men.”

    Your logic is not sound here either. Women who cannot bear children, or sterile men are anomalies within the heterosexual design. These occurrences, as tragic as they are do not render the design as flawed in its essence. However, homosexuality in its essence does not create new life. There are no mechanisms within homosexuality that provide life even if the individuals practicing the lifestyle are in absolute perfect health.

    Tim: “No more so than homosexuality does, anyway 0_0”

    Risking redundancy, I’ve already expressed how homosexuality does not provide life, therefore continue the human species.

    Tim: “Actually, I think that’s called “disbelief,” or “discourse,” or “dissent.”

    Not, IF (in your case), WHEN (in mine) God renders judgment on this nation. I am comfortable with waiting to see which of us falls on the side of truth with this one. It will all come out in the wash as they say.

    Reply
  69. Andrew Ryan says:

    “Again, I am strictly looking at the validity of homosexuality as a mechanism for human perpetuation as a species and as a component of the foundation on which to build society.”

    What relevance does that even have? As Tim has pointed out, there are lots of unions that don’t lead to kids for many different reasons. Many couples can’t have children – why pick on the gays? Some are infertile, some are too old.

    “Women who cannot bear children, or sterile men are anomalies within the heterosexual design.”
    Cop out. And not an answer. Gays aren’t anomalies too?

    It’s also a redundant argument to say ‘what if everyone in the society was x?’. If everyone turned gay tomorrow then there’d be fewer kids being born. If everyone became nuns and monks you’d have the same effect. Society has a broad range of people – some have many kids, some have none.

    Reply
  70. Gary says:

    Andrew: “Because people like you are always making the claims.”

    My suggestion would be to find out for yourself what God says from the source, rather than parroting what other “Christians” have said, or just leave speaking for God out of your argument altogether.

    Andrew: “Err, each other? Certainly they’re not a good fit with heterosexuals. It wasn’t me who brought the question up, it was a Christian on this board.”

    I was just looking for clarification, wasn’t entirely sure what you were saying.

    Andrew: “In other words you’ve got no answer.”

    No, in plain language, I am not going to chase your reasoning all over the map. I don’t have a problem with addressing one issue at a time until we either agree to disagree, or one of us presents indisputable evidence. But I’m not going to run after every sidetracked comment that you decide to throw into the conversation. If it makes you feel better about your position to think you have somehow left me speechless then, I am okay with affording you that misinterpretation.

    Andrew: “A person can pursue happiness in their own lifetime, whether or not they have kids.”

    This does not address what I said. Lets try it another way. HOW CAN “a person pursue happiness in their own lifetime, whether or not they have kids”, IF THERE IS NO LIFETIME IN THE FIRST PLACE? (not yelling, just showing my question around your quote)

    Life does not come from a homosexual union. Can we at least agree on this point?

    Further, big picture view, life is not simply about individual happiness no matter what sexual preference one maintains. That would be an incredibly egocentric perspective. As humans, we also have the responsibility to act in ways that ensure the perpetuation of our kind. The truth is that not everyone’s concept of what makes him or her happy is a valid and acceptable pursuit.

    Reply
  71. Tim D. says:

    I am not disputing the intrinsic value of human life. I will leave that endeavor to the Pro-Abortion crowd.

    Who is this pro-abortion crowd? I’ve never heard of them….

    Or do you perhaps mean, pro-choice?

    I am specifically considering homosexual union and whether or not it is a valid means of continuing the species and, foundation for society.

    Again, you make the assumption that it is the responsibility of married parties to reproduce. This is not the case; ergo, your argument is invalid.

    The obvious fact is that if human life does not continue then, the pursuit of happiness and freedom is a mute point.

    All you need to do here, then, is provide some compelling evidence that homosexual activity is, in and of itself, causing straight couples capable of reproduction to not reproduce. Then you will have a case. Until then….not so much.

    Having life is where it all begins and homosexuality does not provide life. That is an exclusive benefit of heterosexuality.

    You know what else doesn’t provide life? Barren women; most women over 50; sterile men; people who have worked in nuclear plants and can’t reproduce because the radiation has made them sterile. Do you believe they shouldn’t be able to marry?

    I agree with you, “no one has to have kids if they don’t want to.” But you see, that assertion applies to heterosexuals as well, so that was not my point in the first place. I am not suggesting that anyone, especially government has the right to force some kind of reproductive program on people.

    So why do you not hold it against straight couples for choosing not to reproduce, and yet you hold it against gays for not being able to make such a choice? How is it any different? Either outcome produces zero offspring.

    Wow, what a slippery slope.

    The entire foundation of the homophobic movement is the slippery-slope argument (it’ll lead to marrying dogs and cats and children and trees, etc. etc.). So…um, irony?

    I am asserting is that homosexuality, as FORM of human union (not the people, the form of union) first, does not contribute to the human race in regards to the perpetuation of the species, and secondly as a viable means on which to build society.

    And thus you invoke the slippery-slope argument; you assert that, were we to allow gays to marry, this would lead to the complete and overt “homosexualization” of society, which would then lead to people not reproducing, which would lead to the species dying off. Which is a completely ridiculous argument.

    In other words, what are the byproducts of a homosexual union, do they contribute or take-away from humankind?

    They don’t take away; they simply add nothing. Gay unions don’t cause deaths, from what I understand 0_0

    Again, I am strictly looking at the validity of homosexuality as a mechanism for human perpetuation as a species and as a component of the foundation on which to build society.

    And this again makes the assumption that it is necessary for a homosexual party to bear children and reproduce in order for the species to survive. Which is not true.

    I agree with you, I likewise feel confident that through heterosexual union we will not find ourselves in short supply of generations to come.

    Then you agree that homosexual unions pose no harm to the population count. Because that was the point of what I said.

    Sorry, but there is a hole in your logic here. I am purposely not thinking of murder because the exact opposite of initiating life is, not initiating life – not extinguishing it.

    The opposite of “add” is “subtract,” not “do nothing.”

    When a couple considers having a child the question is not, should we have a child, or murder it. The consideration is, do have a child or not have a child.

    In that particular case, then the choice to not have a child is the opposite of “to not have a child,” yes. If that’s all you’re saying, then of course I agree. But you’re expanding this generalization to reflect the entire species, and that changes things significantly; to increase the population is the opposite of “to decrease the population.” And the only way to decrease the population is for people to die or die off. Generations dying off is not a danger in this sense because there are far more heterosexual couples (statistically speaking) than homosexual ones.

    Nobody is arguing that homosexuality should “replace” or “compensate for” heterosexual reproduction; I am, however, arguing that they should have the ability and freedom to be homosexual if they want to be, just as a heterosexual couple has the right to choose not to have children. It is no different.

    Of course not, I likewise value many other aspects of heterosexual marriage such as love, connection, friendship, etc… I love my wife not because she has given birth to our two children, but because of who she is as a person.

    And yet you find this invalid when it relates to a homosexual couple? Do you believe they can’t feel that way about each other, or do you simply believe it’s “wrong” for them to feel that way?

    However, while procreation is not the only valuable aspect of heterosexual marriage, it is the component by which humankind continues to exist. I would say there is immense value in that. Wouldn’t you?

    Yes, but what does that have to do with allowing gays to be gay? The only way to “solve” the problem you present here (gays not producing children) would be to force gays to produce children; they’re not going to produce children whether they’re married or not. So denying them a basic civil right is not going to come even close to solving this alleged problem.

    After further consideration, I absolutely agree with you. Homosexuality is not genocidal. By definition, genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. You must have a life in order to exterminate it. And as I demonstrated above, homosexuality does not provide life therefore, cannot have a genocidal affect on it. Excellent point, thank you for catching it.

    My pleasure~

    Your logic is not sound here either. Women who cannot bear children, or sterile men are anomalies within the heterosexual design. These occurrences, as tragic as they are do not render the design as flawed in its essence. However, homosexuality in its essence does not create new life. There are no mechanisms within homosexuality that provide life even if the individuals practicing the lifestyle are in absolute perfect health.

    So your argument actually has nothing at all to do with the inherent capability to produce life….just with whether or not one is supposed to be able to. Am I correct?

    Risking redundancy, I’ve already expressed how homosexuality does not provide life, therefore continue the human species.

    Neither does eating ham. That’s time you could’ve spent making babies and creating life 0_0

    Not, IF (in your case), WHEN (in mine) God renders judgment on this nation. I am comfortable with waiting to see which of us falls on the side of truth with this one. It will all come out in the wash as they say.

    I, too, am comfortable with that wait. Although I don’t plan on watching up on you or hoping you’ll “get what’s coming,” or anything, just for the record. Hope everything works out for ya~

    My suggestion would be to find out for yourself what God says from the source, rather than parroting what other “Christians” have said, or just leave speaking for God out of your argument altogether.

    I can’t tell you how many different “Christians” have said that to me. Are any of you “real Christians?” Because every one of you tells me that the rest aren’t real. Honestly; who are we supposed to believe here?

    This does not address what I said. Lets try it another way. HOW CAN “a person pursue happiness in their own lifetime, whether or not they have kids”, IF THERE IS NO LIFETIME IN THE FIRST PLACE? (not yelling, just showing my question around your quote)

    Do you mean to argue that the people who aren’t born yet (or even planned to be born yet, or whatever) — i.e. “children” that have not even been conceived yet — somehow have a “right to life?” That we are guaranteeing them the right to life before they are even born? That’s like guaranteeing the right to life to a corpse; it’s not alive, it doesn’t have rights yet. It has rights while it is alive.

    If that’s the case, then I think you’re taking this a bit too far; I believe that there is something to the idea that late-term babies have some rights before they’re technically “born,” but I think it’s a bit of an outrageous stretch to go back to before conception and guarantee someone the right to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” before they are even imagined, much less conceived.

    Unless that’s not what you were saying. In which case I offer you this chance to graciously clarify 0_0

    Life does not come from a homosexual union. Can we at least agree on this point?

    Homosexual unions do not produce children; agreed~ The question then becomes, “is this inherently bad?” If the answer is “yes,” then the question becomes, “why?” It is either bad because no life is produced, or it is bad because of some other reason (i.e. “it wasn’t designed that way,” etc.). If it’s bad because it doesn’t produce new life, then without exception you must say the same of sterile men and women. If you choose to use the design argument, then that’s different. I still disagree, but at least then you’re not apparently contradicting yourself.

    As humans, we also have the responsibility to act in ways that ensure the perpetuation of our kind.

    So you do argue that each of us has a responsibility to reproduce? You argue that it shouldn’t matter if it makes one happier to not have children, that women have the responsibility to reproduce whether or not they want to? Am I correct?

    Reply
  72. Andrew Ryan says:

    “If it’s bad because it doesn’t produce new life, then without exception you must say the same of sterile men and women. ”

    Tim, nice work here. Alas, Dave seems incapable of seeing the contradiction in his argument. When I pointed out this obvious contradiction to him, he refered to it as a “sidetracked comment that you decide to throw into the conversation”

    “Lets try it another way. HOW CAN “a person pursue happiness in their own lifetime, whether or not they have kids”, IF THERE IS NO LIFETIME IN THE FIRST PLACE? (not yelling, just showing my question around your quote)”

    I can understand the argument that a two-day old foetus has as much right to life as a post-birth human. I don’t agree, but I understand. But here you are talking about the rights of people already alive being superceded by hyperthetical people who haven’t even been conceived yet. By that logic, if my partner and I choose to watch TV instead of conjoining, then we’re potentially denying a future person life, and therefore restricting their human rights. If I believed that then I’d never leave the house! Life would be pleasant, but society would collapse, as we’d all be endlessly rutting for fear of denying another human the right to live. Ironically we’d be completely dependent on the gays to keep doing all the jobs!

    “There are no mechanisms within homosexuality that provide life even if the individuals practicing the lifestyle are in absolute perfect health.”
    If you don’t fancy the opposite sex, then you don’t. You can call them abberant, you can deny them the legal right to marriage. Neither of these things is going to make them fancy the opposite sex. Now, if you held a gun to my head and told me to screw another man or die, I wouldn’t be able to. Physically would not be able to. You could use a carrot rather than stick, offer me a million bucks. Still wouldn’t work – the biological machinery would not allow me to. You might as well ask me to do my own sister.

    Perhaps for you it’s a choice, perhaps you COULD have sex with other men, but choose not to for moral reasons. That would make you bisexual. However, for most people, it’s not choice. If I couldn’t choose to be gay, then I believe all the gay people who tell me they couldn’t choose to be straight. They’re not having children the natural method whether they’re married or not.

    BTW, aren’t points ‘moot’ rather than ‘mute’?

    Reply
  73. Andrew Ryan says:

    And to, again, debunk the notion that gays are dragging down the birthrate, here’s the research I’ve refered to before.

    “A new study indicates that a person’s homosexuality may be genetically linked to the number of sexual partners his or her heterosexual siblings have. The soon-to-be-published paper by the Queensland Institute of Medical Research in Brisbane, Australia, may explain how a “gay gene” can survive over time when gay people can’t biologically reproduce, the Economist reports.

    According to the magazine, Brendan Zietsch and his fellow researchers have found that gay people tend to have siblings with more sexual partners than average. If that’s the case, a gay person’s brothers or sisters may be passing on genes associated with both homosexuality and fecundity — and thus besting natural selection.

    The Zietsch study, to be published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, relied on a sample of 4,904 twins, not all of them identical, the Economist reports. (The Advocate)”

    Also, from the New Scientist, the same applies to bisexuals:

    “Previous work has suggested that genes influencing sexual orientation in men also make women more likely to reproduce. Andrea Camperio Ciani and colleagues at the University of Padua, Italy, showed that the female relatives of homosexual men tend to have more children, suggesting that genes on the X chromosome are responsible. Now the team have shown that the same is true for bisexuality.

    “It helps to answer a perplexing question – how can there be ‘gay genes’ given that gay sex doesn’t lead to procreation?” says Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, who was not involved in the work. “The answer is remarkably simple: the same gene that causes men to like men also causes women to like men, and as a result to have more children.”

    The conclusion is that the siblings of gays on average make up for the lack of children from the gay member. So arguing they affect the birthrate doesn’t hold water.

    Reply
  74. Tim D. says:

    How is slicing up an unborn infant with a sharp instrument different from using a sharp bayonet to slice up a born infant?

    Well for one, one is born and one is not. Although I can imagine many would take issue with that distinction alone; and so I tend to see this debate as “open-ended”….the idea is that we are supposed to draw a line somewhere as to when a fetus becomes a human. Giving rights to a fetus or embryo from the time it is conceived is simply ludicrous; it’s not practical and it’s not reasonable (sort of like giving rights to sperm and eggs as individuals). However, many would also argue that denying a fetus rights even as it reaches the late stage of development is also ludicrous. I see and understand both of these points; however, it’s very difficult to find a point in between, across which to draw this boundary line. As such, we tend to gravitate towards one end of the spectrum or another; I don’t really care which end you gravitate towards on that basis, and I don’t assume some kind of moral inferiority on your part (I should expect no less than for you to uphold your own opinion, no matter how much I might disagree); all I ask is that you avoid assuming either hostility or some grand delusion on the part of the pro-choice crowd. They are no more deluded than you or I; we just have different means of resolving the same essentially unresolvable issue. Although there’s nothing I can do to stop you, if assuming such hostility or delusion is what you wish to do; just think of it as advice, if nothing else.

    Reply
  75. Paul Henri says:

    Cross examination always seems hostile to the witness. Legal systems encourage it because it is an effective device for getting at the truth. So let’s use the device and have people answer questions rather than changing the subject to sperm and eggs or begging the question with assertions that the questions are ludicrous or unreasonable.

    Why is it morally right to slice up an unborn infant?

    Reply
  76. Tim D. says:

    Cross examination always seems hostile to the witness. Legal systems encourage it because it is an effective device for getting at the truth. So let’s use the device and have people answer questions rather than changing the subject to sperm and eggs or begging the question with assertions that the questions are ludicrous or unreasonable.

    *quivers with anticipation*

    Sorry, I’m getting the sarcastic bug again….0_0

    Why is it morally right to slice up an unborn infant?

    You clearly do not understand this process. I never made any claim that it was “morally right” to “slice up an unborn infant.” That implies some kind of objectivity, which I do not believe exists. And again, I have never made a case that it is specifically morally permissible to “slice up an unborn infant.” I don’t know if you’ve read any of the occasions on which I’ve said this, but I am not a supporter of late-term abortions. My arguments do not apply to late-term abortions (late third-trimester, etc.), and never have. It is only your attempt to force me to identify a boundary line between conception and birth that has given you that misconception; I have told you how I feel about this. In case you weren’t listening (or simply didn’t catch it), it’s in my above post. I do not believe that an embryo deserves the same rights as a born human being. Likewise, I do not believe that it is “okay” to “slice up unborn infants.” However, an embryo does not become an “unborn infant” until very late in the pregnancy (it is not an infant until it is very close to birth); we can pick details about fetuses and embryos and brain/neurotic activity, but the bottom line is that there is no easy place to draw the line.

    Don’t get me wrong, I have thought about being staunchly anti-choice in the sense of believing that “human life” as defined by the law begins at conception; however, I find that rationale lacking because I simply do not equate a zygote/embryo/fetus with a human being to whom birth has been given. This does not automatically equate me with the other extreme — this does not mean that I am forced to support “slicing up unborn infants” — and it was in my earlier explanation that I attempted to explain this to you.

    I’ll wait and see how you respond this time before I press further.

    Reply
  77. Paul Henri says:

    The response indicates the witness is (thankfully) troubled by abortion.

    Still, the question has not been answered. The lack of an answer is understandable considering the seriousness of the subject.

    Reply
  78. Tim D. says:

    The response indicates the witness is (thankfully) troubled by abortion.

    Hah….I appreciate your attempt at witticism. It shows dedication; or if not that, at least confidence.

    Still, the question has not been answered. The lack of an answer is understandable considering the seriousness of the subject.

    The answer is that it is not “morally right” to do so. I have told you this, have I not? You are isolating this into a dichotomy, one or the other. My answer is that it is not that simple; if we assume the position that the human embryo deserves rights from the moment of conception, we are ignoring important conditions that can affect the mother or the embryo (or fetus, depending on which stage of development we refer to), and potentially ignoring life-altering/destroying scenarios such as ailments/problems/complications that lead to the necessity of abortion in rare cases (cases that I consider important and worth consideration, despite their rarity); on the other hand, if we assume complete pro-abortion policy based on an arbitrary definition of “birth,” then we are allowing fully-developed babies — essentially birthed infants, give or take a few hours/days/weeks/etc., in that they are ready to be born in every way but the technical one — to be executed a very short period of time before they are born. So no, I will not take a stand on one extreme or the other, because the fact is that the issue is just not that simple. If you wish to see it that way then be my guest, but I will not participate in such a simple dichotomy.

    Reply
  79. Paul Henri says:

    The witness (God bless him) has provided evidence that Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever.

    “Dedication” and “confidence” on the part of the cross examiner; remarkably perceptive.

    Reply
  80. Tim D. says:

    The witness (God bless him) has provided evidence that Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever.

    I grasp that this is an attempt to be condescending….but I don’t really grasp what part of my post you consider “evidence” to that end 0_0

    “Dedication” and “confidence” on the part of the cross examiner; remarkably perceptive.

    Yes; I find that the less you’re aware that you don’t know, the easier it is to find confidence.

    Reply
  81. Paul Henri says:

    The above cross examination is evidence the pro-abortionists and the toe-in-the-water pro-abortionists have no argument to support their cause. Name calling comprises their final argument.

    Reply
  82. Tim D. says:

    The above cross examination is evidence the pro-abortionists and the toe-in-the-water pro-abortionists have no argument to support their cause. Name calling comprises their final argument.

    What now?

    I’m down with sarcasm and everything, but now you’re just kind of speaking gibberish. When did I call anyone a name?

    And second of all, I’m not a witness. I’m not sure what you mean by that 0_0 What did I witness?

    Reply
  83. Tim D. says:

    In retrospect, I realize I should have pointed this out in addition to my other response(s):

    The above cross examination is evidence the pro-abortionists and the toe-in-the-water pro-abortionists have no argument to support their cause. Name calling comprises their final argument.

    For one, I don’t speak for the so-called “pro-abortion” platform. I don’t think it would be honest or accurate to that platform to judge them based on the opinions of someone who does not share their beliefs. I am but a single person with a single set of beliefs.

    Second; in a related matter, I don’t understand how you can use the conclusion that such parties “have no argument to support their cause” against said parties; you have no argument to support your perspective in that same sense. Both extremes of the spectrum ignore critically important factors; thus why I do not agree with either of them.

    Reply
  84. R. Sweet says:

    This is a more general comment / response that I’m often suprised to see that no one else offers… I am a commited Christian who attends church every week , never misses communion and serves in ministry. Yet, I often find myself at odds with Christian personalities on TV & radio. The conflict often arises from poliltical views. I proudly voted for Obama and I feel that I did vote my faith. Admitedly, I do not advocate abortion but this fact does not determine my vote. You see, I also do not advocate Islam, Hinduism, adultery, foul language, violence on TV nor many other things that go against my Christian morals yet I do not think that they should be made illegal or punishable by law. God created us with free will and if he saw it fit to leave the responsibility and accounability to us, our government should also. Our country was founded on freedom of religion. Furthermore, our Christian Bible also teaches that we cannot force people to choose the Christian life; we may only offer it in love. We are taught not to judge lest we be judged. Also, let’s consider the all of the other sins and immoral views and positions that come in play in election of political leaders. Why don’t many Christians voice as much outrage about the neglect and exploitation of the poor, sick, homeless and motherless, the needless death of thousands of US troops for the cause of greed and power, and the death of tens of thousands of innocent non-Americans that have resulted from the war on Iraq? Am I to understand that Christians should only value the life of the unborn infants? Am I not to also consider the lives of adult soldiers, civilians and needy? Jesus said that the greatest religion was to care for the poor, sick, homeless and motherless – to love one another as Christ loves His Church. Is that what republican candidates such as McCain offered? I think not. Really this isn’t about Obama or McCain. My issue is really that it seems that most Christians always vote Republican (although, this last election shows that trend to be shifting). Why is it such an automatic vote for them? Do they not think of these other core issues that have substantial faith based consequences? Why is it abortion and gay marriage seem to be the only issues Christians care about? I feel that if a mother chooses to commit the awful sin of aborting her child, she will answer to God. Still, she is only taking one life while war, lack of health care, lack of charity, etc… take hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of lives each year. Yet, we would rather vote for a politian that allows that rather than one that allows abortion? Clearly both are wrong, no men and no man-made government can be morally right since we are all fallen sinners but I will vote for the one that causes less harm directly and does more to help those in need. I hope for the day when a democrat denounces abortion or a republican takes up the cause of those in need and ceases to seek war.

    Reply
  85. Paul Henri says:

    It is important to cross examine a pro-abortionist–which one can define as one who votes for pro-abortionists and does not condemn abortion. Guaranteed the same pro-abortionists will vilify the morals of the Russian and German people of the 1930’s and 1940’s because of their governments’ systematic murder of born and unborn people but will defend the actions of modern pro-abortionists. Moreover, not questioning immorality of this magnitude is almost like supporting it.

    These are dreadful morals on the part of pro-abortionists. The average Russian or German or Japanese did not know for sure precisely what was happening to selected people–actually every perceived enemy imaginable–and did not have the opportunity to vote against it. Yet the average American pro-abortionist knows precisely what is happening to unborn and born (called “partially birthed” by pro-abortionists) people at the hands of abortionists and time and time again votes in a way that continues abortion.

    Insisting that the anti-abortionist prove abortion is immoral is stupid. Insisting this is, in a practical sense, what is going on today. Insisting this is contending that morality is derived from logic. But there is no unassailable logical theory. There is Euclidian geometry, non-Euclidian geometry, Fractal geometry, Chaos theory, etc. This blog intends to prove that Christianity is the most reasonable world view. Part of Christianity is anti-abortion. Christianity clearly is against the murder of Mary’s baby and other infants that might threaten a government or inconvenience the mother. Mary knew the fate of her child, yet she obeyed God by bearing His Son. The same cannot be said of many modern mothers. Cross examination is one way of proving that the other world views are fatally flawed.

    Reply
  86. Andrew Ryan says:

    “Christianity clearly is against the murder of Mary’s baby and other infants that might threaten a government or inconvenience the mother.”

    What about those parts of the bible where God commands people to kill their own children? Or when he instructs soldiers to not only kill their enemies, but specifically tells them to stick a sword in the bellies of their enemies pregnant women? That sounds pro-abortion to me.

    Reply
  87. Tim D. says:

    These are dreadful morals on the part of pro-abortionists. The average Russian or German or Japanese did not know for sure precisely what was happening to selected people–actually every perceived enemy imaginable–and did not have the opportunity to vote against it. Yet the average American pro-abortionist knows precisely what is happening to unborn and born (called “partially birthed” by pro-abortionists) people at the hands of abortionists and time and time again votes in a way that continues abortion.

    Seriously, is that the only response you have to claims about abortion? To compare it to Nazi Germany or WWII Japan? Trying to force emotional attachmnent to an issue by comparing it to such events seems just a tad desperate to me….

    Insisting this is, in a practical sense, what is going on today. Insisting this is contending that morality is derived from logic. But there is no unassailable logical theory.

    And you mean to say that there is no unassailable moral theory? Morals are not derived from anything in the Christian sense; they are simple assertions with no foundation whatsoever except that they were passed down from a higher power. So this criticism seems silly.

    Part of Christianity is anti-abortion. Christianity clearly is against the murder of Mary’s baby and other infants that might threaten a government or inconvenience the mother. Mary knew the fate of her child, yet she obeyed God by bearing His Son. The same cannot be said of many modern mothers. Cross examination is one way of proving that the other world views are fatally flawed.

    What are you talking about when you say “cross examination,” exactly?

    And secondly, that’s some very nice poetry you’ve written here, but how would you proclaim these beliefs in a way that would affect a person who does not lend credibility to the Bible or to the Christian worldview? Simply asserting these things and referring to the Bible does nothing to that end. If one does not believe in the Bible or its claims, then your argument here is moot — and with that goes the argument that “Christianity is the most reasonable worldview.”

    Reply
  88. Andrew Ryan says:

    The reference to Nazis is even more silly when you consider that Hitler was against abortion for his own people, and was also anti-gay, pro-military, trumpeted his ‘pro-family’ values, and also spoke out against atheism. All Republican values.

    Reply
  89. Paul Henri says:

    People sweep horrors under the carpet to survive or for fun. They can rationalize away any set of morals given enough support by others. But they cannot change truth. They cannot change that abortion means slicing up unborn and born infants.

    Reply
  90. Tim D. says:

    People sweep horrors under the carpet to survive or for fun

    Who “sweeps horrors under the carpet” to survive? Or, heaven forbid, for fun? I’m sure some such person could theoretically exist, but I’m curious as to who you might have in mind.

    They can rationalize away any set of morals given enough support by others.

    Anyone can be conditioned into or out of any system of thinking, yes. Did you have something else to add to that thought?

    But they cannot change truth. They cannot change that abortion means slicing up unborn and born infants.

    For the occasions on which this is true — for when the embryo/fetus has actually developed into something resembling an unborn infant — yes, that is the case. Again, did you have something else to add to this? And as for the born infants, if an infant is born, the process is no longer known as “abortion”….

    You seem to think you’re the only one who’s thought this over.

    Reply
  91. Tim D. says:

    People cannot change the fact that abortion means slicing up unborn and born infants.

    For the occasions on which this is true — for when the embryo/fetus has actually developed into something resembling an unborn infant — yes, that is the case. Again, did you have something else to add to this? And as for the born infants, if an infant is born, the process is no longer known as “abortion”….

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


six − 1 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>