Why Liberal Values are American Values...

Sara - posted on 04/30/2010 ( 123 moms have responded )

9,313

50

I didn't write this, but thought I'd post it here for some conversation...

Seems these days Conservatives have convinced themselves, and some of the American public, that being a Liberal is akin to being a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. While this may be a great smear tactic for an election year, to believe such a notion proves that the believer is uneducated in the fundamentals of the American political system. Our nation was founded on Liberalism. Embodied in the Declaration of Independence are its three tenets: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The very term, itself, is taken from the same root as the second of these precepts. To be a Liberal is to defend the freedom - the Liberty - of all people who make up our great nation. To be a Liberal is to trust individuals and families to run their own lives as they see fit. To be a Liberal is to create a nation where anyone can excel if they are willing to do the work.

In order to understand the true nature of Liberalism, and to dispel the misconceptions fomented by those whose agenda is counter to our freedom, I will detail the tenets of Liberal thought and dispel the misconceptions so often put forth by Conservative rhetoric.

Liberalism is "Life." It is freedom from physical dangers that can kill or disable us. The Liberal believes it is a nation's job to protect its citizens from physical harm, whether from external sources, such as hostile nations, or internal ones, like crime, disease, or hunger. Without the solid ground of physical wellbeing, our nation and its citizens cannot enjoy the benefits of being free. Liberals believe in a strong military, well suited to defend the nation. Liberals believe in good laws, hard-working police, and a just legal system to protect its citizens from crime. Liberals believe in affordable health care for everyone, to keep our people strong. And Liberals believe in the availability of food and shelter for its needy, not as a hand out but as a reasonable step in moving all Americans toward self-reliance and the freedom that comes with it.

Liberalism is "Liberty." It is the freedom to do as your conscience dictates without impeding another's rights. Fleeing oppression in mother Europe, our founders established a nation where personal belief and self-determination are protected, not persecuted, where hard work is rewarded, not demanded, and where each person is bestowed with the ability to better his or her life because of citizenship, not class. Liberals believe in freedom of speech to protect us from political oppression. Liberals believe in sound regulations to protect us from economic oppression. Liberals believe in just laws to protect us from social oppression. And Liberals believe in quality education to protect us from the oppression of ignorance.

Liberalism is "The Pursuit of Happiness." It is the freedom to create an environment where the individual can excel. What is freedom if it cannot be used to better our lives? A truly free society must be one where its members can rise above their limitations and expand their futures. We call it "The American Dream," and it's alive and well in the heart of the Liberal. Liberals believe in equal opportunities for all to rise above our means. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our education levels. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our social status. And Liberals believe each and every family should have an equal opportunity to make this world better for their children.

Based on these tenets, we can see that Liberalism is not the monster it's made out to be by the opposition. It is pro individual and pro family. It is pro community and pro country. Liberalism is, by its very definition, the heart and soul of what it means to be an American. It stands against tyranny of any kind, whether international or domestic. It works to remove abuse and fight crime. And it strives to eliminate the idea of a wasted life by not wasting resources and opportunities.

By this time someone might ask, "if that is a Liberal, then what is a Conservative?"

Liberals and Conservatives received their names for good reasons. Just as Liberals get their label by standing for Liberty, Conservatives get their label from the desire to "conserve" a style of living. They, too, claim they are fighting to conserve our personal rights and our economic opportunities, but they do it with a different ideal than the Liberal. The term they use for the difference is "values." Values are norms or codes by which people live their lives. While most Americans share some common values, such as the right to own property and the right to protect our families, we also have many divergent values with which we raise our children. So if we try to impose values into the political framework of the nation, we are forced to ask, "whose values?" And in the search for such absolutes, we must also ask, "which generation's values?"

As the nation ages and new generations take over leadership, the values of its population change. Where once a woman was valued for how well she cooked, cleaned and entertained, today's women are gaining recognition that they offer as much, if not more, to the work force than men. Where once African Americans were forced to live as second-class citizens, now they have a legal status equal to that of whites, even if we still have a ways to go in actual practice. Changing values brings confusing times for many - especially for those who believe that America was better with an older set of values. These people want to "conserve" a style of American living they believe once existed, what they call, "traditional family values." They want to conserve the system that they believe made America wealthy and strong. Unfortunately that also means they want to force all of us to live according to their values.

Conservatives don't really fight for our rights - they fight for what they think our rights should be - putting limits on our freedom of speech in order to "conserve" an older, more traditional norm of what should be said. Conservatives don't really fight for our family values - they fight for what they believe our family values should be - putting limits on our behavior, even behavior between consenting adults, in order to "conserve" an older, more traditional view of acceptable personal activity. Conservatives don't really fight for our income - they fight for little or no regulations - putting limits on our ability to be treated fairly by large companies, who if left without restriction, can form monopolies that choke out competition and drive down wages.

Conservatives are willing to curb our freedom of speech if it clashes with their interpretation of "traditional" values, values from an older time where woman were in domestic servitude to men, where child abuse, sexual abuse, wife abuse, and homosexuality were all kept locked in closets, where minorities were second-class citizens and discrimination was free from incrimination, and where the inability to plan a family's growth meant an explosion of mouths to feed - a population explosion that today threatens to bankrupt our nation's retirement funds. The Conservative position, therefore, is inherently contradictory. You cannot be for legislating away freedom in the name of "family values" and also claim you are protecting individual and family rights.

As new generations have placed their own values into the laws that govern our land, Conservatives have sought to fight back by limiting the size and power of the government. Conservatives are willing to give away the very power needed to protect our liberties in the work place. Their idea of a smaller, less-intrusive government means a return to the days where business decisions and profits were more important than clean air and clean water, where a business could abuse its employees without incrimination, and where minorities and women could be passed over for jobs or paid less then white males for the same jobs. Again the Conservative position is at odds with itself. You cannot claim you are fighting for families at the same time that you allow the family bread winner to be overworked and underpaid and allow neighborhoods to be overrun by non-regulated big business. The Conservative would effectively shift power away from the people, who can elect public officials to fight for their rights, and into the hands of private businesses, who need not answer to the public when making decisions that affect us all.

Because Liberals fight to protect every citizen from having other people's values imposed on them, Conservatives like to label Liberals as being evil. The following list shows what Conservatives like to say against Liberals, and then goes on to show why such assertions are false:

1.Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-family.
However . . .
•Conservatives want to define what your family should be
Whereas . . .
•Liberals put you in charge of your family
•Liberals support your right to define what your family will be
•Liberals fight for your family's rights against economic and political oppression

2.Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-business.
However . . .
•Conservatives are pro-money, but that often translates into monopolies, which hurt small business and competition, which hurts us all
Whereas . . .
•Liberals protect small businesses by regulating the larger ones and by breaking up monopolies
•Liberals protect workers in order to create a healthy workforce that will help businesses grow

3.Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-religion.
However . . .
•Conservatives are often for one dominant religion, and are, therefore, against others
Whereas . . .
•Liberals support complete freedom of religion and from religion so that all citizen are free to choose the manner in which faith is a part of their lives
•Liberals strive to keep government completely out of a family's religious choices

4.Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-freedom.
However . . .
•Conservatives want to stop homosexuals, stop abortions, stop the women's movement, and stop freedom of expression through the use of censorship
Whereas . . .
•Liberals leave it up to the parents to teach such values to their children
•Liberals believe each person or family should be free to choose how to behave as long as it does not interfere with another's rights

5.Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-morality.
However . . .
•Conservatives are for one specific kind of morality
Whereas . . .
•Liberals are for the morality of free choice, where each person or family decides their own values
•Liberals want the government to protect our freedom to choose what is important to us rather than to impose the laws and codes of another's morality

6.Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-military.
However . . .
•Conservatives see the military as a means to impose their values and standards on others
Whereas . . .
•Liberals see the military as a vital protection of our freedoms and our liberties, giving us a space in which to pursue happiness
Liberalism's Stance on Specific Issues

With the desire to promote Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as the central motivation, the Liberal always defends these tenets when deciding how to stand on a particular issue. The following will show why Liberals often take the stance they do:

Abortion/Contraception - Liberty means the freedom to control your body, your reproductive system, and your future.

Affirmative Action - Liberty means having fair opportunities for those in society who are discriminated against.

Education - Liberty means the freedom to learn in order to build a better future for yourself, your family, your community, and your country.

Environment - Liberty means the fair use of our nation's natural resources for all citizens. Where possible, without unreasonable restriction to private enterprise, the government should strive to protect our natural environment so all can enjoy its bounty.

Gun Control - Liberty means the freedom to protect yourself, your family, and your property, with deadly force if necessary. People have a right to keep guns for such a purpose. People also have a right to use guns in sporting activities and in the event that citizens should be called on to form a citizen militia. We do not, however, have a right to own all the latest people-killing technology. The People, through the government, can restrict some of the more deadly weapons being sold today.

Health - Liberty means the freedom to overcome physical limitations in order to better yourself, your family, your community, and your country.

Regulations - Liberty means the freedom to live and work in an environment that best allows individuals and families to grow in the pursuit of happiness. Bad air, bad water, bad living and working conditions only stifle that liberty.

Sexuality - Liberty means the freedom to share mutual intimate affection with the person of your choice, regardless of gender.

Substance Abuse - Liberty means the freedom to decide what you put in your body. Unless the use of a substance is a danger to unwilling victims, its use should be kept legal. In situations where use of a substance may or may not effect bystanders, regulations - such as in the case with tobacco - should be enacted to protect the bystander without denying the individual's choice to use the substance. Smoking and non-smoking areas in public places are a prime example of this.

Taxation - Liberty is found within a system. That system does not happen by itself. It is created and supported by us, the People, and it is funded by our labors. The money we pay in taxes is what allows us to thrive in Liberty and work in fairness. Reasonable taxation is necessary because without it, many of us would find it difficult to get paid even a fraction of what we are paid now. And those who benefit more from the system should expect to pay more to help support it.

Women's/Minority Rights - Liberty means the freedom to be valued and judged on talent and work, not on the physical characteristics over which we have no control.

In closing let me state that freedom sometimes brings situations we don't like. Some people will choose to use their freedom to engage in activities that go against our personal values. It is a great temptation to use our democratic rights to try and enshrine our own personal values - whether they come from religious or humanistic origins - in the laws of the nation. The inherent problem with this is that when Liberty is restrained by any one group's values, even if that group represents the majority of the population at the time, it can easily be changed from one generation to the next, meaning that you could be forced to live under someone else's values as easily as you might force someone to live under yours.

The only true defense of our values is the defense of our liberties.

If you don't want to be forced to live under a foreign set of values, don't force others to live under yours. Instead, fight for the freedom to believe as you want while others believe as they want. Freedom of choice, as long as it does not infringe on another's rights, is the foundation upon which this nation was built. Liberalism is the ideology that strives to defend that freedom for everyone. And for that reason it pleases me to no end to state that I am proud to be Liberal

This conversation has been closed to further comments

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms

123 Comments

View replies by

Krista - posted on 05/31/2010

12,562

16

This thread has been all over the place, and I think we've covered every topic under the sun, so I'm going to bang my gavel and give it a decent burial.

Yes, I mixed my metaphors.

LaCi - posted on 05/31/2010

3,361

3

She's really still talking about hormonal women. I'm about to leave this community lol. It's a joke.

ME - posted on 05/31/2010

2,978

18

Praying for our president and all of his policies to fail is very analogous to praying for the failure of our country...I never prayed for President Bush to fail, or die, or anything else...I prayed that our country would survive his obsurd self-obsessive tactics, but not that anyone or anything would fail...

Krista - posted on 05/31/2010

12,562

16

Here's a question, just since the topic of hormonal birth control has been kicking around in here:

So, we all know that the primary function of the pill is to prevent ovulation, right? And the secondary function is to thicken the cervical mucus. And the tertiary function is to make the lining inhospitable to a zygote. So, the odds of that tertiary function needing to come into play are relatively slim, no? What I don't understand is this: if you are that concerned about the possibility of that happening, then why not just use the pill AND spermicide? If both are used, then the odds of a bunch of sperm breaking through your Great Wall of Mucus, AND making it to an egg that you just happened to release...well, I'd say the odds are pretty darned astronomical. So why not do it that way, if you're so worried about that tertiary function of the pill? Because the pill really IS one of the most effective forms of contraception out there, and it's sad that so many women refuse to take it just on the very slim odds that an egg will be fertilized.

Diane - posted on 05/31/2010

694

18

Mary, where did I say I wanted our country to fail? LOL
I am praying that the Obama policies fail. I DO NOT CONSIDER HIM AMERICA.
I am sure there were people praying that the Bush policies failed. Or don’t you think anyone opposed him? Why don’t you read what is in front of you and not reading things into this that are not there.
Laci you are finished because as I have said before, you can’t debate this. Other than saying I am pro-abortion, pro-choice and I believe that a woman has the right to kill, you do not add anything more than that.
As for hormones, I believe I covered this. I am not for taking anything that COULD CAUSE ABORTION. There are many other routes to go if you are hormonal.
I look to what science says about the pill and methods of birth control. I have posted what the Physicians Desk Reference said…….over and over. It can and does cause abortion.

Rosie - posted on 05/29/2010

8,657

30

diane what laci is trying to get i (i believe ) is that hormonal methods of birth control (ie. the pill, some IUD's, nuva ring, the shot) sometimes prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. some people liken this to abortion. do you use? if you do, do you liken it to abortion?

LaCi - posted on 05/29/2010

3,361

3

Yet again, i said NOTHING about women being hormonal. I asked your opinion about HORMONAL METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL. And yet again, I'm finished with any conversation with you.

Diane - posted on 05/29/2010

694

18

Laci God said man had dominion over the animals period.



Mary said, “I then explained that fetuses do not have legal rights or personal interests either (they may have the potential for those things, but it is not the same thing).”



Well the government in many cases thinks so Mary.







In the Scott Peterson case, he was convicted not on one life taken but two. There are laws in certain states that prevent a woman on death row to be executed until the child is born. If you are a woman and you want to kill your unborn at home, this is illegal and unless you hire the killing done by an abortionist, you can go to prison. There are also states that if a woman takes substances that harm her unborn, she can face prosecution.



“A self-induced abortion is an abortion that a pregnant woman causes herself to have without direct medical aid. Although the term can include abortions induced through legal, over-the-counter medication, it also refers to efforts to terminate a pregnancy through more dangerous means. Such practices are illegal in most places - even where abortion itself is legal.”



http://blog.syracuse.com/news/2007/04/we...



“You also asked me if I thought people could be morally wrong...the answer to that is clearly yes, because I think you are morally wrong.



“You also asked me if I thought people could be morally wrong...the answer to that is clearly yes, because I think you are morally wrong.’



I believe you said that you were an atheist if memory serves me right. What am I morally wrong about?



If you think l I am wrong you assume that there is a right. I am just curious as to how you determine what is right and wrong in your own mind and how you relate that to other people. What am I morally wrong about, abortion? Illegal aliens in our country? Do you think someone is morally wrong for opposing either of these issues?



“I was making a joke about the bible and vegetarianism, Diane...and I thought it was kind of a funny one...but I guess if you think cannibalism jokes are witty...we don't have the same type of sense of humor either...”



I disagree. Mary you were not making a joke in your statement here. “"Genesis 1:29

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." Oh...I'm sorry, Diane, YOU MUST BE a vegetarian...since it says we ought to be vegetarians in the bible...”



This was not a joke. And I followed up with verses that did not prove your point with Genesis 1:29.



Heather, about…….the Republicans, Bush and abortion, what have they done?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act after Bush signed it. Democrats were for this and tried to block it for twelve years. Bush also severely limited medical research by signing an executive order limiting research on embyonic stem cell lines to the 78 already in existence, while allowing research to continue on adult stem cells. Then there is the federal rule issued by the Bush administration to protect doctors and medical facilities from being pressured to participate in abortions. The rule enforces federal law protecting the conscience rights of medical professionals. The Bush Administration issued new regulations that would possibly outlaw stem cell labs, fertility clinics, abortion clinics, and pharmacies from firing employees who objected to their medical services for reasons of conscience.



https://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/01/20/index.html



http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/up...



In 2007, 29 abortion restrictions were enacted in 14 states, capping a rapid rise in the number of new laws since 2000. Between 1985 and 1999, states passed an average of 11 new abortion restrictions each year. Since 2000, the rate has risen to 16 per year, according to Guttmacher.



http://www.stateline.org/live/details/st...



He also tried numerous other abortion restrictions.



http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/25...



All this happened under the Bush Administrations. For Roe to be overturned…the SCOTUS would have to change that. That is why it is important that pro-life judges get on the bench. Bush got two pro-life judges on the Supreme court while he was in office.



Could more be done….always. No president can just change Roe. Of course when Obama took office he worked non stop to undue all Bush did. He is not pro-life and his views are the most radical on this issue of all politicians.





Boy Heather do you have a mouth.



“Do not stand behind a bunch of grey haired penis waggers making empty promises. They are only succeeding in getting the women in this country sidetracked enough not to pay attention.”



Empty promises? What they want Heather is for women to get safe medical care, that they know the truth about abortion and fetal development. That they see first hand what they are killing. Why are you opposed to that? Not all people are pro-abortion like you and many could if they knew the truth, change their mind and choose life for their babies. Democrats do not want that. They do not want women to see sonograms…..that would show the humanity of what they were killing. They do not care if the child aborted feels pain when their brains are sucked out.



And how the heck do you know that I do not do all I can to help pregnant women? I have worked for years in this area. I can’t solve every social problem in America….no more than you can by aborting all the babies you say no one wants. But I have done my part.



Laci…….about birth control.



There are many other things a woman who is hormonal can take to help her emotionally. I am against taking the chance of aborting a life. And scientifically there is a chance with many birth control methods. Does that answer your question?

You said something really disturbing.



“And here is an abortion procedure. medicinal. You like to picture bloody babies in buckets to argue against abortion, as though all abortions are late in pregnancy.”

So killing for you is ok if there is no blood? LMAO



And my dear I try not to think about buckets or basins full of dead babies. That is reality however are you disputing that? It is sad that you do not think the tiniest of babies are worth saving. That even though their hearts beat and they have brain waves and have developed distinguishable body parts, it is ok to kill them BECAUSE THEY ARE SMALL AND THERE WILL NOT BE AS MUCH BLOOD.



I mean how inhumane and sick is that line of thinking. The more blood ya have in ya the more worthy your life is.



I am not going to repost the factual scientific information again because obviously you do not believe what science has to say concerning this. Obviously IN YOUR mind all the Physician Desk Reference books that doctors and pharmacist have are ALL WRONG,when they state that the pill can have an abortive mechanism.



You ignore what medical science has to say because ITS NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.



“I already cited scripture in which killing a fetus is no more than property crime, the punishment for which is determined by the father. I don't need to reiterate myself. I'll address this when I have time tomorrow. Toodleoo”



You never did this….you never cited that I can find anywhere ONE SCRIPTURE that states what you are saying here. You are running, you are hiding, because you cant come up with one.

Gianina - posted on 05/28/2010

311

1

Well Ladies, I must say that I respect and admire you all. I'm glad that you would allow your children to explore and decide on their own.



I have started a new conversation because my topic doesn't quite fit this group's topic. But I would like to know your views. My topic is "Mosque on Ground Zero".

LaCi - posted on 05/28/2010

3,361

3

half my family is baptist, the other half is catholic. There really was never a defining moment for me, I honestly can't remember actually believing in anything. I looked into other religions, thinking maybe christianity just wasn't a good match for me, but I'm pretty incapable of believing in anything. Although I did like Buddhism, I still don't believe in it.

I definitely wasn't raised to not believe in anything. But it's been well accepted.

I plan on raising my son aware that there is plenty out there and not everyone believes the same thing. I think most people hope their children have their values, that's natural. I want him to know the options though, what's right for me may not be right for him. He'll be educated and allowed to make his own decisions. I won't let him go to church until he's older, when he will be able to comprehend that this one particular idea isn't what everyone thinks, a couple hundred people can easily throw off a two year old worldview, seems like a lot. I also would like to take him to a wide variety of churches and such if he ever decides to go, just so he can see many sides.

Gianina - posted on 05/27/2010

311

1

Thank you for sharing. I really appreciate it. :)

Krista - posted on 05/27/2010

12,562

16

We do not plan on raising our children with any religion, but we will most certainly allow them to learn about any religions they wish, and we will do our best to answer their questions and help them find information.

With regards to Christmas, we probably will do the Santa thing. I wouldn't want my kid to miss out on all the excitement. We do celebrate Christmas, we just do so in a secular fashion -- the tree, the gifts, the overabundance of food, the music, and just being together as a family. I think that with some sensitivity and careful forethought, we'll be able to leave out the religious aspect of things while still teaching our kids about the message of peace and brotherhood and celebration that Christmas conveys.

Gianina - posted on 05/27/2010

311

1

I agree with you there Krista. I wouldn't call my self atheist due to anger or a crisis in faith. I would be upset with God rather than change my faith. Now ofcourse, I would say sorry to him later on. :)

Gianina - posted on 05/27/2010

311

1

I agree with Carol Sapriken. Wow Krista... thank you very much. Can't argue with you because really I don't have FACTS that God exist. I just believe that he does exist, just like how I believe in all those 'saints'. My husband is Lutheran, but we got married under the Catholic church (Mom insist!!!). Lutheran is another religion that I had to figure out. I do like how my husband said it plainly...''bible book and no saints'. LOL. Anyway, what's interesting is my husband did tell me that he might not believe in God, but he is not against those with religion.

Krista, you got a point about 'Jesus'. I may have to stop and think more on that.

I have a question. Would you raise your children as an agnostic atheist or allow them to learn about religion? When my boys started to ask questions about Christmas, baby Jesus and Santa Claus. We decided to let them attend sunday school. My husband insisted the Lutheran church, which didn't bother me, as long as they follow the bible. We did agree that we will respect our boys decision when they get older and on their own.

Thank you, I like my given name too. My Dad got my name from an Italian Shakespeare Sonnet. It turned out that there is a song to this name...sang by Jeanette McDonald (from an old black/white movie).

Krista - posted on 05/27/2010

12,562

16

Thanks Carol. It's kind of funny -- my mother has been having a crisis of faith lately, due to some personal setbacks. She told me on the phone last night that she thought I was right and that there was no god.

It made me incredibly sad.

If someone is going to become an atheist or an agnostic, I want it to be because they've examined their feelings and that they are happier and more comfortable in themselves if they do not pretend or try to believe in a god. But if someone becomes an atheist due to anger or a crisis in faith, that really saddens me, because not believing in a god isn't going to make them any happier with their current situation.

Tanya - posted on 05/27/2010

1,073

23

Diane Arizona is 15th in the nation in crime. You don't have it that bad. Also do you have to write a book to answer.

I do believe that this country was founded to give people freedom. I think in modern time our government has abused their power by scaring people into giving up their rights.

Johnny - posted on 05/27/2010

8,686

26

Wow, beautifully said Krista. As an agnostic, you have completely articulated how I feel about it too.

Krista - posted on 05/27/2010

12,562

16

That's great that you respect her decision, Gianina (I also wanted to mention that you have such a beautiful name!). Unfortunately, a lot of atheists or agnostics receive a very hard time from religious family members.



LaCi can speak for herself, but I thought I'd also share my experiences. I'm what you would call an agnostic atheist. That is to say that I do not believe that there is a god, but I do not claim to KNOW that there ISN'T a god.



I was raised Roman Catholic. I was baptized as a baby, and went to Sunday school every Sunday. And none of the stories ever made sense to me, no matter how many questions I asked (and I will give them credit -- they did not discourage us from asking questions. My husband was actually kicked out of Sunday school at age 7 because he asked too many questions.) It was never a case of me losing my faith -- I just never had it in the first place. I just could not force myself to believe, any more than a Christian could force herself to believe in Zeus or Odin.



Once I got older, I became more comfortable calling myself agnostic or atheist, as opposed to just saying that I was a lapsed Catholic.



The funny thing, though, is that I do believe that Jesus existed, that he was a teacher, and that he had some very wonderful lessons about love and brotherhood. That tends to surprise people. But do I believe that he was the son of a deity? Do I believe in all of the supernatural stuff surrounding his life? No. I think all of that was embellished after the fact by the people who were his followers. And I think it's sad that people to profess to follow his teachings often seem to forget that the man was an avowed pacifist. If every Christian on earth TRULY followed his teachings, I think our world would be a lot kinder and more peaceful than it actually is.

Gianina - posted on 05/27/2010

311

1

Hi LaCi, My sisters and I grew up as Catholic, went to catholic schools and involved with the church's activities. One of my sisters decided that she is an atheist. I am sad but respect her decision.



I was wondering if you grew up atheist or had a religion? What convinced you that God doesn't exist?? Just curious and wanted to understand. :)

LaCi - posted on 05/27/2010

3,361

3

My mistake, You knew which one I was talking about and You cited it.



I'm pretty much finished, as you can't answer simple questions like "ARE YOU AGAINST HORMONAL BIRTHCONTROL?" 3 times? 4 times? Maybe you don't answer because you're a hypocrite. That's my guess. Why else would you avoid it.



I don't really see a point in any of this. You can believe that God, somewhere, makes mention of abortion being murder but it never happens. The bible makes NO mention of abortion from a moral standpoint. Regardless of all that, I'm an atheist and your god's laws don't apply to me. So I raise a big middle finger to this conversation, tired of it I'd like one of the other conservatives to come debate.

ME - posted on 05/27/2010

2,978

18

You are praying for our country to fail, I have nothing left to say to you.

Diane - posted on 05/26/2010

694

18

Mary said, “You suggested that we are immoral...I told you what my moral ideals are, and then explained that morality is not legislated, unless the behavior being limited takes away the rights of another.”

Abortion was once illegal. Slavery was once legal. What happened? Does morality change? Will child abuse be legal one day? How about sex between adults and children? Both of the examples I just gave, abortion and slavery, the government legislated.

“I then explained that fetuses do not have legal rights or personal interests either (they may have the potential for those things, but it is not the same thing).”

But I can think of many cases where the fetus did have rights. Scott Peterson killed his wife and baby. He is sitting in jail not because of one death but of two. The courts upheld the rights of Connor, the child.

There are states across this country that will not put to death a women who is pregnant and on death row. Why? Not on potential, but because it is a life.

If any woman causes abortion and kills her child herself……..she will be prosecuted.

So do not tell me that the law sees no life in the womb.

“You also asked me if I thought people could be morally wrong...the answer to that is clearly yes, because I think you are morally wrong.”

Ok questions.

What am I morally wrong on? I believe in not killing a human life, and you do, and you think I am morally wrong? Of course I believe you said you are not a Christian, so morality would be up in the air for you. How do you determine what is moral and what isn’t?

Mary said, “I would not set permanent limitations on access to abortion, because I do not know the circumstances of every woman who might need this service. As I have explained, I've known at least three teenage girls who were refused the right to make this choice until the time limit had passed; I do not think those girls should have been refused the right to make that choice once they were no longer being held by kidnapping rapists, etc”.

So for you a woman could kill long after viability, up until nine months. And that’s not immoral? LOL

And why don’t you just once……say it like it is. The service……is killing. Who might need to kill their unborn. Or cant you get those words out? Kidnapping, rape?
So these girls you knew were raped and kidnapped? …………….Yea right.

Mary Mary………no you were not kidding because this was your post.

Mary said,
"Genesis 1:29
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

Oh...I'm sorry, Diane, YOU MUST BE a vegetarian...since it says we ought to be vegetarians in the bible...”

You were not joking, but want me to believe that now, after I have proven that God said it was alright for mankind to eat animals.

When you guys make reference to the Bible, you need to know the entire subject and how it relates to each other from book to book and in the OT and the NT. Every scripture has a relationship to eachother. You need to do more research.

Heather said, “Diane, if it is true, you are Republican because they are Pro-Life, I am wondering, what have your Republican's done for your cause lately? Abortion is used as a political talking point because it invokes so much emotion and results in blinding people to the real political issues.”

“Bush administration put in place that protect the conscience rights of doctors on abortion. The rules make it so medical centers and staff aren't forced to do abortions or refer for them.”… “They provide better enforcement for existing federal laws by potentially revoking federal funding from violators and making them certify in writing that they will respect conscience rights.’

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4686.html

On Thursday, in one of his last acts as president, Bush declared Jan. 18 “National Sanctity of Human Life Day,” stating that the "the most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent."

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/ar...

“Bush’s declaration was the culmination of eight years of pro-life policies that included sustained opposition to embryonic stem cell research; the appointment of two pro-life Supreme Court Justices; an executive order barring federal funds to be used for abortion- related projects abroad; and a rule protecting federally funded health employees from taking part in abortion-related activities or other practices that conflicted with their religious views.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/ar...

Also in 2002, Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act,
In 2003, President Bush signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act,
In 2004, Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act,
In 2005 and 2006, Bush appointed two pro-life justices, Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, In 2007, both justices voted to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which was challenged in a lawsuit.

In 2007, Bush also sent congressional Democratic leaders a letter threatening to veto any bill that weakened existing pro-life policy.

In 2008, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt issued a regulation to protect the rights of federally funded health care providers to decline to participate in services to which they morally object, including abortion.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Defau...

“ If you are truly passionate on this issue then fight to solve the social problems that cause unwanted pregnancies. Do not stand behind a bunch of grey haired penis waggers making empty promises. They are only succeeding in getting the women in this country sidetracked enough not to pay attention.”
And how do you know I do not help in this capacity? Your mouth is vile and you make me sick to my stomach.. And if anyone sidetracks anyone its PP and those who hide behind the lable…pro-choice. You can’t even say the word, “kill” to describe abortion. Its just a procedure for you, like getting your teeth cleaned.

“I already cited scripture in which killing a fetus is no more than property crime, the punishment for which is determined by the father. I don't need to reiterate myself. I'll address this when I have time tomorrow. Toodleoo”

No you did not site anything and if you did I will apologize. What were the scriptures and where did you post them ? I just looked back over every post in this conversation and you did NOT QUOTE ONE SCRIPTURE.

Amie - posted on 05/25/2010

6,596

20

Ladies I know you can debate without resorting to personal attacks or insinuating at one. This is for everyone.

If something said gets you overly emotional, don't post. Reign in your feelings and come back to it when you've cooled off. Feeding into will only make things worse. Ignore the offensive words and just debate the points made, if any.

LaCi - posted on 05/25/2010

3,361

3

"“I am indeed suggesting they do not need to live. If it happens to me, remove my feeding tube please.’



Of course you do. In your world there is no room for handicapped and less than perfect people. And I will keep saying this over and over, but Hitler had the same vision. He did experiments and killed those who fall into your category.



“As I said in my post, a fetus has advanced brain waves in the third trimester. It isn't about being able to reason like an adult, it's about being a conscious being.”



And babies in the womb in the third trimester are CONSCIOUS? Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. The unborn in the womb can do none of these. "







I'll take it piece by piece because I don't have time.



You apparently need to work on your vocabulary a bit, consciousness and and a conscience are two entirely different things.





I never said let's line cripples up and shoot them, I said if I'm in a pvs then let me DIE. That means one is essentially braindead. One does not THINK or FEEL, only regulate organ systems.

ME - posted on 05/24/2010

2,978

18

Laci...every woman I know who's had an abortion has had it exactly the way you described...

that doesn't mean later abortions are not occasionally medically necessary...but a huge percentage of them use the pill method early on in pregnancy...in the women's clinics I've worked with and used for medical services (4 seperate ones)..this has been the case...

LaCi - posted on 05/24/2010

3,361

3

And, by the way, the original interpretation of the old testament claimed animals were here as our companions to care for. It didn't say we COULDN'T eat animals, but it certainly didn't say their sole purpose was for food.

LaCi - posted on 05/24/2010

3,361

3

"Am I against birth control for women who are hormonal ?…"



You still can't manage to read a post. are you against HORMONAL Methods of BIRTH CONTROL? was the question I asked of you.









And here is an abortion procedure. medicinal. You like to picture bloody babies in buckets to argue against abortion, as though all abortions are late in pregnancy.





"STEP ONE — THE ABORTION PILL

Your health care provider will give you the abortion pill at the clinic. You will also be given some antibiotics to start taking after the abortion pill.



The abortion pill works by blocking the hormone progesterone. Without progesterone, the lining of the uterus breaks down, and pregnancy cannot continue.



STEP TWO — MISOPROSTOL

You will take a second medicine — misoprostol. It causes the uterus to empty.



You and your health care provider will plan the timing and place for the second step. You'll take the second medicine up to three days after taking the abortion pill. Your health care provider will give you instructions on how and when to take the second medicine.



The second medicine — misoprostol — will cause you to have cramps and bleed heavily. Some women may begin bleeding before taking the second medicine. But for most, the bleeding and cramping begin after taking it. It usually lasts a few hours. You may see large blood clots or tissue at the time of the abortion.



More than half of women abort within four or five hours after taking the second medicine. For others, it takes longer. But most women abort within a few days.



It's normal to have some bleeding or spotting for up to four weeks after the abortion. You may use sanitary pads or tampons. But using pads makes it easier to keep track of your bleeding."





I already cited scripture in which killing a fetus is no more than property crime, the punishment for which is determined by the father. I don't need to reiterate myself. I'll address this when I have time tomorrow. Toodleoo

Heather - posted on 05/24/2010

6

33

Diane, if it is true, you are Republican because they are Pro-Life, I am wondering, what have your Republican's done for your cause lately? Abortion is used as a political talking point because it invokes so much emotion and results in blinding people to the real political issues. If you are truly passionate on this issue then fight to solve the social problems that cause unwanted pregnancies. Do not stand behind a bunch of grey haired penis waggers making empty promises. They are only succeeding in getting the women in this country sidetracked enough not to pay attention.

ME - posted on 05/24/2010

2,978

18

I am going to answer your attacks one at a time, I am not going to post them all over again...that's getting tedious...

You suggested that we are immoral...I told you what my moral ideals are, and then explained that morality is not legislated, unless the behavior being limited takes away the rights of another. This is why I cannot demand that horrible carnivores cease their behavior. They are not taking away the rights of any being that has legal rights. I then explained that fetuses do not have legal rights or personal interests either (they may have the potential for those things, but it is not the same thing).



You also asked me if I thought people could be morally wrong...the answer to that is clearly yes, because I think you are morally wrong.



The women we are talking about ARE US citizens with rights...so your point there is mute.



You are also wrong about my view...Laci and I agree about some things but we are not the same person, and we do not share all of our views in common. I would not set permanent limitations on access to abortion, because I do not know the circumstances of every woman who might need this service. As I have explained, I've known at least three teenage girls who were refused the right to make this choice until the time limit had passed; I do not think those girls should have been refused the right to make that choice once they were no longer being held by kidnapping rapists, etc.



I was making a joke about the bible and vegetarianism, Diane...and I thought it was kind of a funny one...but I guess if you think cannibalism jokes are witty...we don't have the same type of sense of humor either...

Diane - posted on 05/24/2010

694

18

“I am indeed suggesting they do not need to live. If it happens to me, remove my feeding tube please.’



Of course you do. In your world there is no room for handicapped and less than perfect people. And I will keep saying this over and over, but Hitler had the same vision. He did experiments and killed those who fall into your category.



“As I said in my post, a fetus has advanced brain waves in the third trimester. It isn't about being able to reason like an adult, it's about being a conscious being.”



And babies in the womb in the third trimester are CONSCIOUS? Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. The unborn in the womb can do none of these.



“God views the fetus as the father's property, I never said it was viewed as the woman's property.”



Cite the scripture to prove your point.



“Scripture relating to Jesus is not applicable to common men. Jesus was a divine being in human form. Of course he was filled with the holy spirit at conception, the sperm was allegedly the holy freakin' spirit. I came from sperm, from a man, not a divine being. Pro-life christians twist scripture out of context to attempt to make a point. Are you against hormonal birth control diane?”



Jesus was God who came in the flesh. The scriptures I gave were not about Christ in the womb but others. Including John the Baptist. You say we twist scriptures…..you do not even know them for crying out loud.



I am challenging you right here and now. You and me Laci……….make your case scripturally for abortion and I will present mine against abortion. And when you make a point, also add the scripture book and number.



Am I against birth control for women who are hormonal ?…Ya know honey I’m not sure, but I am for frontal lobotomys for pro-choicers who believe that killing should always be an option. Oh and done without pain meds…….LOL What goes around comes around as they say.



Of course unlike you I am joking. LOL



Mary said, “PERSONALLY, I am non-violent (think Buddhism, tho I am not a Buddhist either). I do not believe in war, I would NEVER own, or fire a gun, I don't understand how people killing people to prove that killing is wrong makes sense to anyone, I am a vegetarian, and I've never had an abortion..’



What a joke. You are for nonviolence and yet you condone abortion. LMAO Please tells us in graphic terms what happens during an abortion. Tell us what the goal of the abortionist is Mary.



“Taking the rights of an adult woman away from her is against our constitution, invading her right to private medical advice and medical treatment is a violation of her civil rights. I've already explained to you that a fetus has no rights...LEGALLY...and no ability to have interests.”



No its not. Our Constitution does not give everyone equal rights….only citizens. And our government also takes rights away from people. Our government legislates morality because at one time abortion was a crime. It still is if you want to kill your own child yourself. If you hire it done its ok.



What is so hypocritical about your views is that you give the woman the right to kill then you take it away. You impose YOUR MORALITY ON A WOMAN WHO MIGHT NOT THINK IT’S A BAD THING TO ABORT AT NINE MONTHS. How can you do this?



Your view is barbaric and hypocritical. And you pretend to be nonviolent. LMAO



“I do not think that your personal morals are right Diane, I think you are wrong in every way imaginable. But, I DEFEND your right to be wrong with all my heart; as long as you are not violating anyone elses rights. That is how our country works. You get to make your personal moral choices based on any set of beliefs you like...If you are a white supremacist (not you specifically, I hope), and you kill someone of another race, then you should go to prison. That is not only my opinion, that is the law of the land.’



Of course you don’t…we do not share the same worldview.



As for the Genesis scripture….. God created animals, including human beings, on the sixth day. In Genesis 1:28, God says: "Have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” God's Word says: "The righteous one is caring for the soul of his domestic animal." (Proverbs 12:10)



It is good to remember, though, that the Bible emphasizes the distinction between humans and animals. Humans, not animals, were made 'in the image and likeness of God.'



(Genesis 1:26) Animals were created for mans use and they are here for a variety of reasons, work, pets and food.



"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you." (Genesis 1:29; 9:3)



God might in the garden have wanted man to eat animals but obviously He made concessions. If you knew the Bible or did the research you would have caught that scripture. Don't you do that at the university you teach at ?



“I'm a lacto-ovo vegetarian too Laci...I was vegan for awhile, but I agree with you...chicken fetus is not on the same level as a conscious creature...;-)”



I would think the two of you also would eat a human fetus if ya could, ya know if it was prepared to your liking. That is your style cuisine.

ME - posted on 05/24/2010

2,978

18

I'm a lacto-ovo vegetarian too Laci...I was vegan for awhile, but I agree with you...chicken fetus is not on the same level as a conscious creature...;-)

LaCi - posted on 05/24/2010

3,361

3

I'm a vegetarian. Conscious beings and all. I'll eat an egg though. ;) Chicken fetus never saw it comin'.

ME - posted on 05/24/2010

2,978

18

"Genesis 1:29
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

Oh...I'm sorry, Diane, YOU MUST BE a vegetarian...since it says we ought to be vegetarians in the bible...

ME - posted on 05/24/2010

2,978

18

"The NAMBLA organization thinks having sex with young boys is ok? Are they morally wrong?
The KKK hates blacks and Jews and thinks the White man is supreme? Are they morally wrong?
Koreans kill their dogs and eat them, this is culturally acceptable for them to do. Are they morally wrong?
Is adultery wrong? Is rape wrong?
How about Sharia law? Killing all girl babies in China? "

Now Mary since you are so open minded……would you even think to tell someone who believed any of these was moral that they were wrong? Because what’s immoral in our culture may not be immoral in another, right? The relativist would say that we can’t judge them, because no one is right or wrong. If you say any of these are wrong, what are you basing it on? Do you think that two people with contradictory ethical views both be correct?" -Diane

I've explained to you, Diane, I am not a moral relativist. How many times do I have to tell you that? I am also not an atheist...you and those incredibly nasty assumptions...they keep getting you to put your foot in your mouth! Even if I were an atheist, the burden of proof would not be on me to prove that God exists, it would be on the person arguing that God does exist.
PERSONALLY, I am non-violent (think Buddhism, tho I am not a Buddhist either). I do not believe in war, I would NEVER own, or fire a gun, I don't understand how people killing people to prove that killing is wrong makes sense to anyone, I am a vegetarian, and I've never had an abortion...That doesn't mean I believe that I can force my personal beliefs on anyone, nor do I think it would be a better world if the State legislated morality in such a way that EVERYONE lived by my personal rules or by Buddhist rules. I'm sure if someone tried to force you to be a vegetarian, you'd be pissed. Taking the rights of an adult woman away from her is against our constitution, invading her right to private medical advice and medical treatment is a violation of her civil rights. I've already explained to you that a fetus has no rights...LEGALLY...and no ability to have interests. The problem with all of the issues you brought up is that they are poor analogies for abortion. People's rights are being violated in all of them (accept for the dog, and I have no bigger problem with people eating dogs than I do with people eating chickens...so, whatever). Oh...and killing all girl babies (during pregnancy) is the parent's right, but it's quite foolish as far as long term social planning goes. You brought your sister and niece up again...as I've told you already...My sister almost died and my nephew DID die because she tried to save him and deliver him during a very dangerous pregnancy (mostly due to pressure from people like yourself)...She was 26 weeks pregnant. Everyone has personal stories to contradict eachother, Diane.
I do not think that your personal morals are right Diane, I think you are wrong in every way imaginable. But, I DEFEND your right to be wrong with all my heart; as long as you are not violating anyone elses rights. That is how our country works. You get to make your personal moral choices based on any set of beliefs you like...If you are a white supremacist (not you specifically, I hope), and you kill someone of another race, then you should go to prison. That is not only my opinion, that is the law of the land.

"You won’t attempt because your back is against the wall and you have nowhere else to go. So run Mary and crawl back up on that ivory tower you have made for yourself.

Yours is twisted logic……"-Diane

No, Diane, I won't debate the particulars of abortion with you anymore, because niether of us is getting anywhere. You are unwilling to hear the truth about this issue from people whose experiences and understading are different from your own. I understand why you don't like abortion, I really do. That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. I've explained why it must remain a safe, legal, medical procedure. That is all I have to say...I am not running anywhere.

I also will not dignify your attacks on my professionalism and my teaching abilities with comment. There was no reason for you to say the things you just said to me. You have not been in one of my classes, so all of the vitriol you aimed in my direction was simply meaness for meaness sake.

LaCi - posted on 05/24/2010

3,361

3

I am indeed suggesting they do not need to live. If it happens to me, remove my feeding tube please.



As I said in my post, a fetus has advanced brain waves in the third trimester. It isn't about being able to reason like an adult, it's about being a conscious being.



And as I also said in my post, I believe if you've bothered carrying the fetus until the third trimester and there is no danger to you you may as well give birth.



God views the fetus as the father's property, I never said it was viewed as the woman's property.



Scripture relating to Jesus is not applicable to common men. Jesus was a divine being in human form. Of course he was filled with the holy spirit at conception, the sperm was allegedly the holy freakin' spirit. I came from sperm, from a man, not a divine being. Pro-life christians twist scripture out of context to attempt to make a point.



Are you against hormonal birth control diane?

Diane - posted on 05/23/2010

694

18

Mary said, “I explained what moral relativism is (I'm an ethics professor, so I promise you, I'm right)”



LOL You promise?



Well Mary, with due respect the fact that you teach ethics is wonderful but why should that make a difference to me? You promise me that you are right? You are kidding aren’t you?



Well Mary you do not live in Arizona so you do not know how we feel and what we go through with illegal immigrants. Take it from me, I am right. 



What I notice Mary is that you make a lot of assumptions and you never back up what you say with fact. For example….you said this.



“Now...you are a single person, arguing a personal view that doesn't match up with the rest of the country (even the most cold-hearted assholes believe a mother should be able to abort to save her life); WHO'S the moral relativist Diane??? The majority who have a coherent point of view, or the single individual arguing an insane point of view???”



You presume to know what every person in the United States feels about abortion. Have we ever taken a nationwide poll? Have the people ever had a chance to vote on this? And are polls always right?



Polls lately about Obamas health care package show that Americans do not like it. Were we ever asked if we wanted it?



I am arguing a position, a position you find repulsive because you are pro-abortion and believe that women should have the right to kill. You have the right to argue your position, but honey so do I. But do not think that your position carries more weight just because you teach ethics. The fact that you address the issue of morality gravels me especially with positions like you hold.



I can only imagine how one sided you are in your classroom. But then most universities today are filled with humanists who do not teach without bias but ram their philosophical viewpoint down vulnerable kids throats. Do I think you even try to see both sides of an issue? No way in hell. And you have to use vulgar terms and you swear…….oh Mary you are a piece of work I will say that. Do you do that in front of your class? LOL



Coherent you say? You are all over the board on the issue of abortion. Your worldview is compassion-less. Abortion is a form of child abuse…….it is the hired destruction by burning by dismemberment of a living human being.

Your American style tolerance has no limits. What feels good……..is good enough for you. Your position is anything but noble; it is a catalyst of hate and violence. I would just bet that you just love Peter Singer don’t you? How ethical is he Mary?

And what position is on the dark side?



Self defense is not murder, why do you even bring that up?



Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).



Now tell me Mary……..does the unborn in the womb give consent to be killed?



“In addition, Diane, I don't understand why you continue to argue your religious beliefs to a community that is, in large part, PROFESSED ATHEISTS. To them, you are speaking nonsense ALL THE TIME. Every 3 page long post you write full of religious fundamentalism is ignored by everyone here with whom you disagree. Do you always waste this much time and energy?”





Oh come on Mary climb down off your ivory tower why don’t you? I am not impressed. Your groupies might be but I am not.



If you really read and you were not so quick to hate……..you would see that I rarely bring up God. In fact if you look in my last post I addressed it ONLY BECAUSE someone else brought it up. I do not need God to show that abortion is what science says it is.



“Pascals wager does not convince me that God exists (I don't need convincing). And religion is not required for morality...People with no belief, or who are Agnostic about their belief in God are typically wonderful people. But you want to quote Pascal to me...”



Oh I am sure you don’t, you’re always right………LOL remember?



What is morality Mary? Do you not agree that different people might see an act differently? You think killing babies is ok, I do not. Who is right?



The NAMBLA organization thinks having sex with young boys is ok? Are they morally wrong?

The KKK hates blacks and Jews and thinks the White man is supreme? Are they morally wrong?

Koreans kill their dogs and eat them, this is culturally acceptable for them to do. Are they morally wrong?

Is adultery wrong? Is rape wrong?

How about Sharia law? Killing all girl babies in China?



Now Mary since you are so open minded……would you even think to tell someone who believed any of these was moral that they were wrong? Because what’s immoral in our culture may not be immoral in another, right? The relativist would say that we can’t judge them, because no one is right or wrong. If you say any of these are wrong, what are you basing it on? Do you think that two people with contradictory ethical views both be correct?



You are doing to me what you say I have no right to do to you.



Sorry but IMO any morals atheists (it is impossible to be an atheist) have are self-imposed and can be judged only by efficient and practical they are.

I do think that the existence of a personal God is crucial for a coherent understanding of objective morality. Yours is not coherent.



Intolerance is not being able to accept the others beliefs. I do not accept your belief on this issue. But you on the other hand, are not tolerant either.



You say my views on abortion should only true for me, why then isn’t your view just true for you? If truth is truth, it must exclude something-falsehood. If you correct me, you assume error exists. And if you assume error exists, you assume that truth exists. There are absolutes. You denounce me as a Christian pro-lifer saying that I have no right to judge others or determine what is right. But like I said, you’re judging. Do liberal humanists only get to judge?



I am sure you know who J. Huxley is. He said something to the affect that if there is no god everything is permissible. And that for me says it all. It sums up humanism in a nutshell. Most reject God because they do not want to follow rules…so they make their own up. And the ones they make up change with the winds direction.



You make fun of people who believe in God. You call yourself an atheist. An atheist is someone who says, THERE IS NO GOD. So Mary, could you prove this for me. Give me proof that there is NO GOD. What proof do you have? I never said I could prove there is a God, I just believe by faith in what I have seen and I believe there is evidence. But if you classify yourself as an atheist….then you are making a value statement. You say there is NO god. Can you prove Mary with 100% certainly that you are right? Do you possess all the worlds’ knowledge to be able to say this?





“I won't be answering the rest of your silly questions, because I am not the moral relativist here...and I won't be debating abortion with you anymore. You are either mentally ill, or you are just trying to get a rise out of us...I'm done giving you what you want...go obssess about abortion somewhere else...”



You won’t attempt because your back is against the wall and you have nowhere else to go. So run Mary and crawl back up on that ivory tower you have made for yourself.



Yours is twisted logic……

Diane - posted on 05/23/2010

694

18

Laci said, “Something can be "alive" and not be a conscious being. The necessary structures for brain function aren't present until after 20 weeks. The function of the brain at that point is primitive, still not what I would call a conscious being. More advanced brain waves aren't present until halfway through the third trimester, at which point-unless the mother's health is a concern- I would agree that abortion shouldn't be condoned.”



Yes. and there are people who are alive today who do not have brain function either. There are mentally handicap and people in comas, they are not conscious…..are you suggesting that they do not have the right to live? Can babies who are just born take care of themselves? Without help can they do ANYTHING? Would a baby die if left alone and no intervention was made? They can’t add, read, eat on their own. They can’t dress themselves, can’t drive a car and can’t tell their mothers or fathers that they are sick or in pain. They are totally helpless creatures, no different than the life in the womb.



When a baby is born….do they have the same mental capabilities as a teenager or an adult? Can they reason?



So you are pro-choice until when? When do you put handcuffs on the woman? If you are making a determination as to when a life is worth saving I would think you would not want to make a mistake. So at what EXACT point should abortion not be allowed?







My niece was born at 22 weeks and she stayed in the hospital for five months. She never even opened her eyes for two months. You could see the blood running through her veins and she had no bridge of her nose. The crack on her bottom had not even fully formed. And next week she graduates with honors and will go to college in the fall to study medicine. Twenty two weeks…………you would have said that she could have been aborted because her brain was not fully functioning and she was primitive.



You pro-choicers kill me. You believe a woman should have the choice to kill because ITS HER BODY, you say that the unborn does not deserve personhood and then some of you admit to taking the womans right away, when YOU think the life is worth saving. That is irrational thinking. It makes no sense at all.

So I will throw your statement right back at ya and ask you WHY. WHY SHOULD ABORTION BE PERFORMED EARLY?



Is it because the older it gets and looks more like a baby the harder it is for you to come to terms dismembering it? Sucking the brains out of an unborn you say is primitive is easier to live with as compared to one in later months? Is it because the unborn might feel pain? Hey PP and Obama do not believe in giving pain meds to late term babies getting abortions. Because if they allowed that, it would personalize that which is being killed.



So why should abortion be performed early, what difference does it make. You admitted it was human, it was a life so?



Now I usually do not bring God into the equation because if I do the person who is pro-abortion will tell me I am weak especially if they deny believing in God themselves. Science is clear enough on the life in the womb. But you brought it up so I will address it.



You said, “Secondly, if god had ranked the fetus as the same as a human being, postnatal, an eye for an eye would have been applicable to the life of a fetus. The fetus is viewed on the same level as property, which is why there were fines imposed rather than actual harm to the offender, property of the father has been damaged/stolen and there is a lesser punishment for the offense. Obviously not considered murder by god."



Where is there a ranking system in the bible where God categorizes his love for life? Could you please give the scripture passage where this can be found? Those who are pro-choice believe the fetus, the unborn is the WOMANS PROPERTY. That’s they they believe she has the right to kill it. God does not believe this way and nowhere in the Bible will you find anywhere that God condones murder. And abortion if you are a Christian, is murder. You said it yourself….its is a life at conception. Scriptures say that God is the creator of children and a lover of children. Of all the sins committed in the Old Testament, one stands out above the others in its utter abomination to God; the killing of children. Look up Levitucus 20……read what God says about the killing of children. Then read Proverbs 7, then 2 Kings 24.



"Can a woman forget her infant, or be without tenderness for the child in her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee." --Isaiah 49:15



God is saying how cant a woman be tender towards that in her womb. God does not forget. He does not say that the life in the womb should be full term or so old for His attention.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5



So God knew before conception. He allows free will so He steps back and allows mankind to live.



"...and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb." --Luke 1:15; How could the Holy Spirit ever fill anything but a person?



Does it say anywhere how old the life in the womb should be? Does God say it must be viable and have so many brain cells?



This scripture is amazing. It shows us that God is the creator. Our bodies are vessels where the life grows, that that which grows is a separate and individual creation that has NOTHING to do with the mother. It is not the property of the mothers. Maybe that is why in most states a woman on death row cant be put to death. She is carrying another life.



"For You created my innermost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." --Psalm 139:13-14

God speaks of the child from conception.



“"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

--Psalm 51:5



From the time……..of conception. No mention of a random date of viability. Man does that to justify killing by abortion. That however is not how God looks at life in the womb.



I could go on and on and post many more, but you should get the idea that God loves the life in the womb, that we have no right to kill it.

Gianina - posted on 05/22/2010

311

1

The fundamental problem with the original posting is that the author pulled a bait-and-switch. Classic liberalism, in fact, was a major influence in our nation and those liberal values could reasonably be called American values. Classic liberalism does indeed stress personal liberty, freedom from oppression and freedom of thought. Classic liberals saw two powerful institutions as the biggest threat to these values: government and organized religion. Only the government has the legal power to deprive you of your liberty by throwing you in jail. The power of organized religion was expressed in two ways – priests and ministers often were central figures in controlling freedom of thought and expression. And throughout much of European history known to our founders, organized religion worked hand-in-hand with kings and often controlled their actions by threats of excommunication.

To ensure personal liberty, freedom from oppression, and freedom of thought, the classic liberal therefore believed that government power needed to be limited in the areas within which it will have some control and even in those areas should be restrained through a check and balance system and the ultimate control by voters. The classic liberal similarly sought to ensure that the federal Government could not establish an organized religion to the exclusion of others. (Note that the founders did not oppose a belief in God, which has been a value shared throughout our history by 80-90% of the population and leaders. Even more interesting and less often discussed, there was nothing in the original Constitution barring a State from establishing a religion. That was a prohibition against the federal government.)

But the word “liberal” today means almost the opposite of what it used to mean. Liberal today means that the Government should command and control virtually every aspect of the way we earn our living, the way we are educated, and the things we are allowed to say and think. The author said that “liberals believe in freedom of speech.” But there is no one less tolerant of a dissenting view than the modern liberal. It is predominately liberals who protest and try to shout off the stage any invited speaker who has a message that doesn’t fit with modern liberal views. It is liberals who are trying to make a crime out of “hate speech” -- a term infinitely stretchable to cover anything other than speeches that espouse hatred toward Republicans or conservative Christians. It is liberals who think that having one moderately conservative TV network (Fox) and a handful of talk radio shows that are, admittedly sometimes outrageous, is so dangerous that Congress should pass legislation forcing these enterprises to provide equal time to opposing views – leaving enforcement in the hands of the classic liberal oppressor -- Government officials. Modern liberals tout the value of free speech only when it promotes their agenda – freedom of speech and expression to the modern liberal means that no parent should object to books about gay couples as part of the 5th grade curricula, but outside organizations like the ACLU need to be vigilant in making sure that the local Boy Scout troop is not allowed in a State park because they believe that their members (remember freedom of association?) should have a belief in God.

The author notes that liberalism is a system under which “hard work is rewarded and a person can better his or her life “because of citizenship not class.” The author is right about how classic liberalism works. But the modern liberal believes in none of that. The modern liberal believes that class is everything – if you are a member of a “protected class” as defined by the Civil Rights laws, you have given extra sources of scholarship money to go to school; you are given extra consideration in being accepted in schools; your small businesses have special set-asides; if you are fired, the Government will sue on your behalf. Given historic segregation and discrimination, there are some powerful arguments that can be made in favor of the Civil Rights laws, but those laws have morphed over time from being a protection against discrimination into a club against anyone who isn’t in the class. And year by year, more and more different groups are labeled “victims” by the modern liberal for the primary purpose of making sure that the Government can intervene on their behalf – increasing Government power and authority. Even “citizenship” is not a value recognized by the modern liberal. Our “sanctuary cities” are testament to the fact that illegal aliens (oh, I’m sorry, did I engage in hate speech), I meant “undocumented workers,” are being nominated as future members of a protected class too.

The author’s view of the rewards for hard work are difficult to reconcile with the modern liberal State. We have an income tax system where 50% of the people no longer pay any federal income taxes and over half of them receive “refundable tax credits,” which means they are getting money back even though they paid nothing in. It’s true that the 10% of people with the highest incomes make 46% of the gross income of individuals in the country. But they pay over 70% of the total income taxes, far more than even a proportional rate. And every modern liberal screams that the rich need to pay even more.

The root problem with modern liberals is that they seem to believe that money appears out of nowhere and that compassion means that we need to expropriate that money from those who have it and give it to those who don’t. I don’t know if this line is original with George Will, but I heard him say it, so I’m going to quote him: “Democrats love jobs, but they hate employers.” One cannot consistently over-regulate, tax, and load on costs to corporations, then act shocked that they move operations to other nations. Universal health care sounds compassionate. But who is going to pay for it and where does the money come from? It has been widely reported that phone lines were burning up at hospitals and clinics right after the legislation was passed by people who wanted to know how to sign up for their free health care. The money will come from those who have it either in the form of higher taxes or through the silent thief of inflation. The result will be poorer America, with reduced economic growth, and fewer jobs. But one more step will be taken away from classic liberalism and toward the modern liberal vision – while the Government has for decades used the regulatory process to obtain effective regulatory control over heavy and light industry, banking and insurance, major retailers, small commercial establishments, public and private colleges, and most other parts of the economy, those pesky doctors and hospitals will finally be brought to heel and placed under federal oversight and control.

The author’s views on Conservatism are equally wrong and for much the same reason – the artful use of slippery definitions. Conservatives, for the most part, are seeking to conserve the liberal values that are discussed above. This means to me, for example, that a true Conservative remains wary of what is often called the “religious right.” I have no problems with their existence or their desire to spread their beliefs. But I remain watchful to ensure that their beliefs do not provide the Government with any more reasons to impose new restrictions on how I live my life.

Conservatives believe in hard work by individuals and private enterprise. That means that they are not reflexively opposed to corporations and other job-creators. But the author seems to believe that being pro-business means pro-monopoly. In fact, virtually every effective monopoly that the world has ever seen is a creature of Government. It was the federal government that gave the railroad monopolies as an inducement for their building across the country. It was State governments that created and preserved telephone, electric and gas monopolies. The Post Office is a government sponsored monopoly on first class mail. It is typically the government that runs the monopoly bus lines, subways, etc. It was government that controlled airport slots and routes prior to deregulation in the 1970s. OPEC is a government sponsored cartel. And the list goes on and on. I’m not saying that there are no instances of a private monopoly being created, but they typically blow up after a few years or decades at the most. And there are instances where there does appear to be a “natural” monopoly – while our electricity can be generated by non-monopolies, it should probably remain delivered over one set of lines in each community. But by and large, it is government that creates and protects monopolies, not Conservative or classic Liberal views.

What both Conservatives and Liberals need to watch out for is where corporations work hand-in-hand with Government so as to create special rules that help them and hurt their competition. We should both support the corporation that truly asks the Government to get off its back, if that also means that the corporation isn’t simultaneously putting its hand out for special treatment relative to its competitors.

Wikipedia is not a particularly trustworthy source, but in this instance they got it right. In its article on Classic Liberalism, it is explained that Conservatives are promotors of classic liberal values.

From Widipedia: "By the 1970s, however, lagging economic growth and increased levels of taxation and debt spurred new ideas, sometimes called conservatism and sometimes called classical liberalism. Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman argued against government intervention in fiscal policy and their ideas were embraced by conservative political parties in the US and the United Kingdom beginning in the 1980s.[11] In fact, Ronald Reagan credited Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, and Hayek as influences.[12]

[A]t the heart of classical liberalism", wrote Nancy L. Rosenblum and Robert C. Post, is a prescription: "Nurture voluntary associations. Limit the size, and more importantly, the scope of government. So long as the state provides a basic rule of law that steers people away from destructive or parasitic ways of life and in the direction of productive ways of life, society runs itself. If you want people to flourish, let them run their own lives."[13]

Iris - posted on 05/20/2010

1,993

29

"this IS the most extreme right wing view of abortion I've ever heard...and teaching ethics...I hear a lot of them! Radical fundamentalism is so unreasonable...no matter where it comes from..."



Yes it is Mary. When you call people heartless and evil and compare them to Nazi's because they don't share your opinion, you start losing your credibility. On top of that, complaining about other peoples name calling that's just priceless.

?? - posted on 05/20/2010

4,974

0

Okay, so my curiosity is taking over here... I gotta wonder, Diane, are you a vegan? Or at the very least an activist in the rights of animals that are needlessly slaughtered?

You're all about the rights of every life, so I would have to assume that your views cross over to other species? Or do you think that the unrelenting slaughter of innocent animals is acceptable because you're hungry, or your cat needs premium food, or any of the countless ridiculously wasteful reasons billions of lives are snuffed out on a daily basis all around the animal kingdom...? Is that any different?

Wouldn't you agree that the insanely out of control murderous rampage that our species is inflicting on the creatures we share this planet with is infinitely worse than any of reasons a woman may choose to have an abortion... or is that fetus more valuable than the 25,000 dolphins that are slaughtered every September in Taiji Japan? (Slaughtered for NO reason, I might add.)

ME - posted on 05/20/2010

2,978

18

this IS the most extreme right wing view of abortion I've ever heard...and teaching ethics...I hear a lot of them! Radical fundamentalism is so unreasonable...no matter where it comes from...

Rosie - posted on 05/20/2010

8,657

30

Your worldview is cold and empty, it is compassionless and limited. That which is in the womb is not a baby to you, it’s an object. The reality for the pro-choice stance is a bucket of slaughtered body pieces, systematically torn to shreds by a vacuum of dark humanity.-diane

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha- you should become a soap opera actor with all the drama in that one statement!!! i think i pissed myself laughing. how do you not get that the way you are going about this is completely totally and utterly ridiculous, and nobody is going to listen to something that sounds so extremely radical. and obama is a extremist? bwahahahahahahahhahahha!

Jenny - posted on 05/20/2010

4,426

16

Diane, I challenge you to not say Nazi in any of your posts for 1 whole week. I don't think you can do it but I'm sure the rest of us would appreciate it.

Krista - posted on 05/20/2010

12,562

16

Can you not read? I said that in cases where the womans life is in danger steps should be taken....but not abortion. The child at any gestational age can be INDUCED. Then steps can be taken to save the mother and the child if that is possible. I also mentioned ectopic pregnancies.

I can read perfectly well, thank you. And what I am reading is that in cases where a woman's life is in danger, you think that everything except abortion should be done.

So, if abortion is the ONLY thing that would save that woman, you would refuse to allow that to happen.

And you believe that a child can be induced at ANY gestational age? What about at 10 weeks, when they are completely incapable of surviving outside the womb? Diane, for all intents and purposes, THAT is an abortion. It is the artificial termination of a pregnancy. So you can dance around with semantics and say that you're for early induction, but never abortion, but unless the child is of the age to be viable outside the womb, the difference between induction and abortion is really no more than splitting hairs.

And you mentioned ectopic pregnancies, and how you believe a surgeon should go in for those. I appreciate that you can at least see the medical necessity for termination in those cases.

But, I'll ask you this: you believe that it is okay to terminate a pregnancy in the case of ectopic pregnancies, where the child is obviously doomed and where continuing with the pregnancy would kill the woman.

Do you not realize that there are other situations besides ectopic pregnancies where the child is doomed and the mother's life is endangered? How come it's okay to "murder a baby" in the case of an ectopic pregnancy but it's a horrible, unforgivable sin to "murder a baby" if the implantation has taken place in the uterus instead of the fallopian tube?

ME - posted on 05/20/2010

2,978

18

Clearly, Diane, you misunderstood my post entirely, and since you posted your ridiculous response at 1 am, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Because it's either that you totally misunderstood me, or you just accused me of the OPPOSIT of everything I just said...even Fox would have a hard time managing that....I didn't support the postition of moral reletivism anywhere in my post. I, infact, said it was "NONSENSE"! I explained what moral relativism is (I'm an ethics professor, so I promise you, I'm right). It is a position taken by a SINGLE person, who claims that they don't care what other people believe, because their moral views are right for them, alone. Now...you are a single person, arguing a personal view that doesn't match up with the rest of the country (even the most cold-hearted assholes believe a mother should be able to abort to save her life); WHO'S the moral relativist Diane??? The majority who have a coherent point of view, or the single individual arguing an insane point of view???

Is "murder always wrong"...well, lets see, that depends on what you think murder is. Is murder killing another human being for any reason? Then, no, murder is not always wrong. In cases of self-defense: I see no reason to inprison someone for murder if their life is in danger. (oh...look, another analogy for abortion...I gave you one earlier that you completely ignored)

In addition, Diane, I don't understand why you continue to argue your religious beliefs to a community that is, in large part, PROFESSED ATHEISTS. To them, you are speaking nonsense ALL THE TIME. Every 3 page long post you write full of religious fundamentalism is ignored by everyone here with whom you disagree. Do you always waste this much time and energy?

Pascals wager does not convince me that God exists (I don't need convincing). And religion is not required for morality...People with no belief, or who are Agnostic about their belief in God are typically wonderful people. But you want to quote Pascal to me...

ok: "This reminds me of something Pascal said. “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”

So...your belief is attractive to you...crazy, but attractive. You've bet on God without evidence; that's just super...but, unless you are attempting to establish a theocracy in this country, your belief in God is not relevant to any discussion about the laws of our country. I've always kind of thought Pascal had a very cheap view of belief in God (Kierkegaard...now he BELIEVED), but whatever floats your boat. If there is no proof for God's existence (as Pascal freely admitted), then, why do you keep trying to convince people...?

I won't be answering the rest of your silly questions, because I am not the moral reletivist here...and I won't be debating abortion with you anymore. You are either mentally ill, or you are just trying to get a rise out of us...I'm done giving you what you want...go obssess about abortion somewhere else...

LaCi - posted on 05/20/2010

3,361

3

I guess I'll copy and paste it since you still aren't reading it. Here we go again.

"I'll kill that silence.

Something can be "alive" and not be a conscious being. The necessary structures for brain function aren't present until after 20 weeks. The function of the brain at that point is primitive, still not what I would call a conscious being. More advanced brain waves aren't present until halfway through the third trimester, at which point-unless the mother's health is a concern- I would agree that abortion shouldn't be condoned. Not so much because of brain function, more because it CAN survive with medical intervention out of the womb. I do believe abortion should be performed as early as possible. I do agree that a fetus is ALIVE from conception as well as HUMAN from conception, amoebas are alive and they possess the necessary DNA to define them biologically. I do not agree that the fetus is a being at conception. Its a cluster of cells that are only beginning to differentiate, it is not self aware, it is not a conscious being, it is comparable to a person in a persistent vegetative state, which will typically be able to digest, maintain necessary bodily activity to sustain life, and in many cases respond to stimuli but it lacks the brain function necessary to be conscious or aware. It may have the potential to be conscious, but it is not.

Secondly, if god had ranked the fetus as the same as a human being, postnatal, an eye for an eye would have been applicable to the life of a fetus. The fetus is viewed on the same level as property, which is why there were fines imposed rather than actual harm to the offender, property of the father has been damaged/stolen and there is a lesser punishment for the offense. Obviously not considered murder by god."

Diane - posted on 05/19/2010

694

18

Mary said, "Whatever is right for that person is right...no matter the facts of a particular case, and they don't care about the conditions or situations faced by others, because, what's right is right for THEM, and that's all that matters.."
What society can live by this?
What if a woman thought it was ok to sleep with your husband. Right or wrong? What if hubby thinks it’s ok?
What if you think stealing from your workplace is ok? They don't pay you enough and damnit, you want more.
How about lying and cheating and stealing........all ok?
How about those in NAMBLA who think that having sex with minors is ok?
And why blame Bush because he according to the Democrats got us into the war? He DID WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS BEST OR US AND FOR HIM.
How about parents who do not want medical attention for their dying children?
How about a parent who does not believe in seat belting his child in the car?
How about a group of five people who want to get married?
How about your neighbor who wants to have sex on his back deck at noon?
How about the parent who thinks smoking pot is better than alcohol so he allows his children to do it at home?
How about a woman who is pregnant who wants to do heavy drugs?
What about that group that pickets dead soldiers funerals?
What about the Muslim family in your neighborhood who believes that for his family they will follow sharia law?
You have a family member who likes child pornography.

I believe in absolute morality. I believe there is one right answer and I don’t believe all faiths and religions can be right at the same time because they contradict each other. I do not believe that what is legal is always moral. Is sexual child abuse always wrong? Is murder always wrong?
I believe there is truth that it is not something that is invented. Gravity existed before Newton. If there is no truth why bother learning anything? What’s the point of going to school? Why follow the Ten Commandments? Why not cheat on tests? False ideas about truth lead to false ideas about life and they have consequences. False ideas about truth justify immoral behavior. Abortion. Truth is NOT dependent on our feelings. Something is true whether we like it or not. Abortion is killing.
This reminds me of something Pascal said. “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”
So for you as a relativist……how can you tell anyone what they are doing is wrong? Truth then is in the eye of the beholder……whatever it is. We live in a time defined not by our morals but by our fascination with obscenity. We excuse deviant behavior. The big lie of today is that amorality leads to happiness.