Speration of Church and state

[Klash]

Re: Speration of Church and state

Even though I disagree with your beliefs, your arguments are usually intelligent, but this statement is out there.

Christians do not claim the government ownes a womans reproductive system. They simply have a fundemental disagreement on when life begins and they want the government to protect that life that can't speak for itself.

When christians push government to make abortion illegal, they are argueing the government ownes the rights to a womans reproductive system. Of course most people think that our rights are given to us by government, so this argument does not bother them.

But if the government ownes a womans reproductive system, could we one day find ourselves argueing against/for mandatory abortions for undesired children or for population control. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice giving the government more power is not the answer.

[T-Man007]

Re: Speration of Church and state

When christians push government to make abortion illegal, they are argueing the government ownes the rights to a womans reproductive system. Of course most people think that our rights are given to us by government, so this argument does not bother them.

But if the government ownes a womans reproductive system, could we one day find ourselves argueing against/for mandatory abortions for undesired children or for population control. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice giving the government more power is not the answer.

I don't know bro. I don't think of it as giving Uncle Sam control over a womens body as much as I feel the Government stating that ALL murder is illegal. I don't look at it as a women's right to choose just because the baby has yet to breathe the air we breath. That child breathes, it just does it a different way. It takes the oxygen from the umbilical cord. (I know you know this and I'm not trying to play educator here or anything) I'm stating the fact that the only difference between the child in the womb and the one out of the womb is how it feeds and breathes. But both are still a growing living thing that no one has the right to terminate, no one! From my position, the life begins at concesption. That child is a living growing human being from conception on. Termination of that human, in any state, is murder. IMO.

[JohnnyB]

Re: Speration of Church and state

I don't know bro. I don't think of it as giving Uncle Sam control over a womens body ....

The Government has laws against womens and mans body all day long. One exapmple, a women or man can't use hers or his reorductive body parts to make money (money for sex), so the mantra of "keep your laws on my body", doesn't work very well when coming to abortion. Becauce there are laws on all of your bodys wheither we like them or not. So when people try to make it apply to abrotion only, their arguement isn't very well thought out, but that's pretty common with that type of thinking.

Here's another flawed arguemnet that they try to use when it comes to the death penility, which they try to compare to this same issue. "It's okay to kill someone for a crime, but you're against abortion". First of all, the death row inmate is there becaue of a crime aganist another human being, that he/she commited. Yet the baby in a mothers womb is inoncent of any crime, but some how it's okay to kill that baby, but not the person that took another persons life. Here's the smoke screen, "it not a baby it's a fetus", some how that's supposed to make it not a human being. When the word "fetus" in Latin means "little one", little what? Since it's in the womb of a human, that would make it a little human. Their thinking is so twisted they don't see it, that's why they can twist the 1st Amendment and not see this simple Amendment for what it is. A freedom of Religion with no laws being made by Congress against it. They see it as an amendment that governs Religion and where it can be practiced.

JohnnyB

[T-Man007]

Re: Speration of Church and state

Good post bro! I did not know that fetus meant little one.

[JohnnyB]

Re: Speration of Church and state

I did not know that fetus meant little one.

It can mean, young or offspring too, but either way it's still a human being in the formative stage. It'll never develop in to anything other then a human. That development starts at conception, I don't remember how many times the cells splits, but it is alive, the sperm that fertilized that egg is alive. It has information in it, that when it comes together with the egg, determines if it'll be a boy or girl. The life of that sperm continues on as these formations take place. The splitting of cells is life in action, I'm no Scientist, but I know that something that's not alive, does not come to life because it is out of where it was. As some of the pro-choice advocates believe, "it's not a life until it takes it's first breath."

Here's the twisted part, these same people want laws made to protect the egg(s) of birds, reptiles or sea turtles (not all, but you get the point). Because they know that it is a developing life in that egg and by destroying that egg you have destroyed a life. But when it comes to human life, the though is different. That some how life works different in humans that in the animal world.

Once a mind can twist that simple fact of life, it has no problem twisting the 1st Amendment. I mean why not, if you don't follow any other rules of logic, evidence or interpretation, they through these rules out when it comes to their interpretation. When thing that should be literally interpreted, they want to interpret it as a figure of speech, when it has an implied sense, they want to interpret it literally. It boils down to, they interpret as they see fit, to fit their agenda.

You can't reason with people like that, because they have thrown reason out the window, but in their own minds they are the reasonable ones, showing that they have no idea what reason is. Their ideas are not grounded on one stable or foundational truth, truth is relative to them, this is why they change the rules as they see fit, because truth being relative (in thier minds), it changes. One truth can't or doesn't have to be true all the time, we all have the truth (unless you believe in Jesus). This is why you can't reason with them, reasonable people follow the same reasoning line or truth, unreasonable people don't. Thus the twisting of the 1st Amendment

JohnnyB

[T-Man007]

Re: Speration of Church and state

I agree 100%

Here is the liberal mindset:

Preserve wildlife, save the whales, protect the seals and kill your unborn child.

The same people who don't want the US to drill for oil in Alaska because of the wildlife are the same people who want the right to abort a child because they aren't ready to be a parent or because they don't like the situation in which they got pregnant.

[Klash]

Re: Speration of Church and state

The Government has laws against womens and mans body all day long. One exapmple, a women or man can't use hers or his reorductive body parts to make money (money for sex), so the mantra of "keep your laws on my body", doesn't work very well when coming to abortion.

Ah! So infringing more freedom is okay because the government is already infringing other freedoms. (being facetious) Hell with that rationalization we'll be back to despotism in no time.

Becauce there are laws on all of your bodys wheither we like them or not. So when people try to make it apply to abrotion only, their arguement isn't very well thought out, but that's pretty common with that type of thinking.

You are using infringing legislation to support your argument against abortion and your insulting a 'type' of thinking?

[JohnnyB]

Re: Speration of Church and state

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, with the pro-choice mind set and not following rules of interpretation or lines of reason.

My preface was the mantra "keep your laws off my body" used by the pro-choice gang, so by not following the guide lines of interpretation. The line of debate is being changed, because the lunacy of the mantra has been revealed. Instead of defending the mantra (which was the basis of my statement), a red herring is thrown out, as bait to change the debate. While at the same time throwing reason out the window, why? Because the assumption of the red herring is that taking a life or stopping the development of life at any stage, whether in the womb or out of the womb, is a freedom.

By stopping a life from further development, will make you a criminal legible for the death penalty in some states, put in prison for sure. To come to this mind set you have to ignore this basics of life and it's development. I remember watching a film in school, how the sperm would swim to the egg and did all it could to get into that egg, it's definitely alive and has life in it. Once it did get into the egg, they would start separating, starting the development of a new life and being alive while doing it.

So the red herring isn't based on truth but an assumption, which is circular in it's reasoning.

They say (not all), "if it's in the mothers womb and has taken it's first breath it's not life", then why is Scott Peterson guilty of double murder. Because that baby whether born or not was a human being with life. You can't be charged with murder for a not living human being. The sad part about this is, that some people that agree with the verdict, would say it's okay for a women to abort her baby, because it's her body. Which means it's okay for a women to murder an unborn child, because it's her decision. What about the mans sperm that is part of the development of that child, that child was just as much Scott's as it was Laci's. If it's not a child at any stage of development, why can a person be charged with the murder of an unborn child at any stage? Because it is a life in the womb of a women.

Following the same line, the welfare system will give you support for an unborn child at any stage, but if you want an abortion, it isn't a child anymore. How do people rationalize that in their minds, they don't, their minds have been programed to not think, but believe what they are told and if you question it, you're a close minded bigoted Religious zealot. If you want to be PC, you don't want those titles associated with your name. In reality they are the close minded ones.

It amazes my how we can find some bacteria on Mars and the headlines read "Life on Mars", but somehow the life creating actions that happen when an egg and sperm come together, isn't life, to the pro-choice gang. This is part of denying basic truths, which include reason, evidence, logic and interpretation skills. They don't use any of those, then claim they are the reasonable ones.

What I find interesting is they cry "freedom" but in the next breath want to take away the Religious freedoms given to us in the Constitution, they want freedoms that are not there. Back to the 1st Amendment, this is why they can twist it's original meaning to fit their agenda.

JohnnyB

[JohnnyB]

Re: Speration of Church and state

I agree 100%

Here is the liberal mindset:

Preserve wildlife, save the whales, protect the seals and kill your unborn child.

The same people who don't want the US to drill for oil in Alaska because of the wildlife are the same people who want the right to abort a child because they aren't ready to be a parent or because they don't like the situation in which they got pregnant.

I agree, the idea itself takes away responsibility, if you go out, have sex and end up pregnant, we'll help you kill that baby, oh by the way it's not a baby yet

I'm for choice, you have the choice to have sex with who you want, you have the choice to use contraceptives or not, you have the choice to not have sex, you also have the choice to have sex with someone you would never want to make a family with or be with for the rest of your life, the choice to have sex as a couple married or not (do I think this is right, no, but it's your choice) and whatever choices I left out as far as sex goes.

Once a life is made you shouldn't have the choice to kill that life, because you had plenty choices to prevent that from happening, by not exercising those choices, you are where you are. So be responsible for your actions and live with the consequences of your choices.

JohnnyB

[DragonRider]

Re: Speration of Church and state

Johnny your arguments are very intelligent. I respect your passion.

[Klash]

Re: Speration of Church and state

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, with the pro-choice mind set and not following rules of interpretation or lines of reason.

The same reason you are now using to support your values, is the same reason you abandon when it doesn't. Yet you will now try and use reason as an argument against pro-choice.

My preface was the mantra "keep your laws off my body" used by the pro-choice gang, so by not following the guide lines of interpretation. The line of debate is being changed, because the lunacy of the mantra has been revealed. Instead of defending the mantra (which was the basis of my statement), a red herring is thrown out, as bait to change the debate. While at the same time throwing reason out the window, why? Because the assumption of the red herring is that taking a life or stopping the development of life at any stage, whether in the womb or out of the womb, is a freedom.

Let me simplify your statement. The mantra "keep your laws off my body" should apply to a fetus.

If you give government ownership of a women's reproductive system, where does it stop. Does the government start investigating miscarriage's. Does some osha type inspector evaluate each pregnancy and give mandatory diets. When the welfare system starts to be stretched to thin from heavy populations, is a viable option to make abortion mandatory.

If you and/or the pregnant woman feel that abortion is wrong don't have an abortion.

It amazes my how we can find some bacteria on Mars and the headlines read "Life on Mars", but somehow the life creating actions that happen when an egg and sperm come together, isn't life, to the pro-choice gang. This is part of denying basic truths, which include reason, evidence, logic and interpretation skills. They don't use any of those, then claim they are the reasonable ones.

Bro, the bacteria existed independently on mars. I don't see any day old fetus' roaming around anywhere. Why? Because they are dependent on a living system, to survive and develop.

What I find interesting is they cry "freedom" but in the next breath want to take away the Religious freedoms given to us in the Constitution, they want freedoms that are not there. Back to the 1st Amendment, this is why they can twist it's original meaning to fit their agenda.

Bro, you've been beating the straw man (i.e. "they") alot in this argument, defining and overgeneralizing your opposition and then presenting your case. I'm right here JohnnyB. There is no need for you to define your opposition, when you have some.

Everyone should know I don't want to take away anyones freedom, period.

Once a life is made you shouldn't have the choice to kill that life, because you had plenty choices to prevent that from happening, by not exercising those choices, you are where you are. So be responsible for your actions and live with the consequences of your choices.

JohnnyB

So a married man and woman that have sex and use birth control, because they have sex outside of procreation, get pregnant and have an abortion are irresponsible? I remember reading that about 20% of the women that had an abortion in 2001 were married.

Just because you don't agree with the responsible action some women take, because of your ideas, does not mean that they are being irresponsible.

[T-Man007]

Re: Speration of Church and state

I agree, the idea itself takes away responsibility, if you go out, have sex and end up pregnant, we'll help you kill that baby, oh by the way it's not a baby yet

I'm for choice, you have the choice to have sex with who you want, you have the choice to use contraceptives or not, you have the choice to not have sex, you also have the choice to have sex with someone you would never want to make a family with or be with for the rest of your life, the choice to have sex as a couple married or not (do I think this is right, no, but it's your choice) and whatever choices I left out as far as sex goes.

Once a life is made you shouldn't have the choice to kill that life, because you had plenty choices to prevent that from happening, by not exercising those choices, you are where you are. So be responsible for your actions and live with the consequences of your choices.

JohnnyB

I agree totally.

[JohnnyB]

Re: Speration of Church and state

Johnny your arguments are very intelligent. I respect your passion.

Thanks Bro

JohnnyB

[Th3w0rld1sm1ne]

Re: Speration of Church and state

I agree 100%

Here is the liberal mindset:

Preserve wildlife, save the whales, protect the seals and kill your unborn child.

The same people who don't want the US to drill for oil in Alaska because of the wildlife are the same people who want the right to abort a child because they aren't ready to be a parent or because they don't like the situation in which they got pregnant.

Exactly. I hate liberals for this reason.

Unfortunately, conservatives are not much better.

there is a broad frontier in politics called the "not being a polarized moron" party that is yet to be explored. I hope someone does soon... Things are getting fairly rediculous around here.

I fear that bush's rediculous christian uber-conservative agenda will trigger a hippy liberal douche backlash and we'll go from 8 years of neo-conservative hell to 8 years of cry baby liberal hell.

[Skarhead]

Re: Speration of Church and state

IMO, the church has no biz being in the government... not even close