Ackh, bicker bicker bicker bicker bicker. These people can't just calm down and let the man say something, they have to talk over top of multiple people at once. Ackh!
It is this simple, anyone who supports willy nilly abortion is against the fundamental basics of life. You are death and the literal mortal enemy of everything this world is. They're are exceptions but this is out of hand your committing genocide for convenience on your CHILDREN millions and millions.
@Avensadora Other animals kill each other. Why not humans? Because we have deemed that murder is wrong. When a drunk driver hits a pregnant woman and kills the fetus, that is considered murder. Why is it murder for the drunk driver but legal abortion for the mother?
@Avensadora We haven't been in the jungle for millions of years. We have empathy.... well some do.
BTW have you ever read how some animals will nurse abandoned young of other species? I assume your alive so you should support life.It's an all for one, one for all things, unless YOU wanna die I can't deny your' will, but we can not allow you to deny others. and by that we mean the unspoken fetus stripped of a chance before the first breath.
@grandtheftauto5588 what do you mean they "aren't formed babies yet"? A third trimester abortion is legal in this country. At what form does a human become important enough to have his or her life and rights protected according to you?
@sueezee1 no i'm not kidding. If you want to justify killing unborn babies and insult people who want to protect their life and rights go right ahead, you're not stopping the opposition one bit
I do not want the women who are having multiple abortions per year, or life to be raising kids, nor am I fond of encouraging the perpetuating of their genes into the population.
Also, the argument that life begins at conception is silly. Life is a process, which includes conception. Life begins when life becomes possible. When there are sperm and ovaries.
Therefore, If one believes that the creation of life is God's will then we better not refuse any sexual invitation, or our own desire.
I do not want the women who are having multiple abortions per year, or life to be raising kid, nor am I fond of encouraging the perpetuating of their genes into the population.
Also, the argument that life begins at conception is silly. Life is a process, which includes conception. Life begins when life becomes possible. When there are sperm and ovaries.
Therefore, If one believes that the creation of life is God's will then we better not refuse any sexual invitation, or our own desire.
I love how pretentious pro choice militants are so intense about protecting a woman's rights, completely ignoring the fact that some of the unborn babies they have no qualms about killing will grow to be women. It's insanity and IMO completely indicitative of how self-centered and irresponsible our society has become.
@bazookafluke says:completely ignoring the fact that some of the unborn babies they have no qualms about killing will grow to be women.
~~~~~~~~~~ Youre kidding, right??? You think we want unwanted females born because they are females? Our n motto is "all children to be wanted children". Youre fast talk with only affect dumbasses & they're harmless.
Man should not shed innocent blood in his hands. Abortion is and will always be wrong!!!! You can't shoot a man and kill him after he slaughters your family but you can kill a baby?? Hahaha this country is so fucked up.
That was the kind of answer I was looking for, thank you. Although I must protest about the sex before marriage comments. There is no reason to believe that pre-marital sex encourages more stds. What does encourage more stds is not realizing that pre-marrital sex will happen. If we don't teach young people to be safe, that is where the real problem will of stds is. Although I will allow that abstinence is the best way to not get stds, it is also impractical. Young people have sex
@MrSchnuffs i disagree when you say "theres no reason to believe premarital sex encourages more stds". stds are so wide spread because of premarital and extramarital sex. if sex was exclusively for marriage, we wouldnt have the massive problem we have today. i also dont find abstinence "impractical". im not saying premarital will never happen, of course it will. but abstinence is not impractical, it used to be the norm. look how far weve fallen and the consequences thereof.
@normaspleen I'm sorry but if you make a statement like "abstinence used to be the norm", you really have to be able to back that up with some hard facts. There is no reason to believe that civilization (christian or otherwise) has just suddenly allowed premarital sex. In fact it's been prevalent throughout history. The problem comes from what people associate with it. For example, in ancient times it wasn't considered adultery if you fornicated with a slave.
@MrSchnuffs lol please.. abstinence was the norm in this country. and again, im not saying absolutely no one ever had premarital, or course some did, but the majority did not. sex was not glorified in every facet of life like it is today. its not the fact that as you say "society has just suddenly allowed premarital", premarital has just become more common as morality in america has declined. and in turn, more stds, more widespread, and now the abortion issue. (con)
@MrSchnuffs (con) furthermore,abstinence is the ONLY way to get 100% protection from stds and pregnancy. you cant argue against that fact. you say teaching abstinence is dangerous, and that just shows the mindset of todays society,and the consequences of it can be seen clearly. the danger is teaching sex is "normal", instead of that it is a sacred thing created by god for marriage. giving kids condoms, very young kids at that, and telling them "if you have sex, make sure to use this" is foolish.
@normaspleen I said teaching ONLY abstinence is dangerous. But other than that, you may want to do a little research into safe sex. Condoms have are 98% effective. When combined with other forms of birth control they further decrease the rate of pregnancy. They are also instrumental in preventing stds. The problem here is that because you think that sex is immoral that you should prevent it altogether. This doesn't help anyone without your specific worldview.
@MrSchnuffs first off, abstinence 100% guarantees no std, no pregnancy. condoms or other forms cannot do that. thats a fact. all they can do is decrease the risk at best. and dont even try to say problems associated with premarital sex like pregnancy, spread of std, abortion, emotional issues are unfounded and wrong. theres no arguing it. these are all very real consequences of it. and there are many reasons for emotional distress that come from premarital. (con)
@MrSchnuffs (con) ive heard young girls explaining how their decision to have premarital has destroyed them, not because of "puritanical connotations". some girls go to school to be tormented, called a whore and laughed at when it spreads around school, or in these days when they are put on a wall of shame on facebook. some girls give themselves because they believe they are in love, only to be ditched and shattered emotionally, regretting their decision. the reasons are endless. (con)
@MrSchnuffs (con) and again i go back to abstinence, if people abstained from sex until marriage, it would eliminate all of these things! no pregnancy out of wedlock, no spread of std, no children emotionally battered and confused, a massive reduction in abortion.. it goes on and on. this cannot be said for using "protection". all it can do is reduce the risk.
@normaspleen All the problems you talk of are the result of the stigmatization that happens in a puritanical society. The only reason they're considered whores, sluts or any other derogatory name is because of the views of the general populace on sex. On top of that the problem doesn't seem to be the sex but the people who insult others based on it. You shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the people doing wrong are the people who perpetrate the insults, not the girl.
@MrSchnuffs your answer to everything is to simply attribute it to a "puritanical society",when that is far from the case. these girls are called horrible names by kids at school who are NOT christian. and the instance of girls giving theirselves because they believe they are truly in love, only to be ditched and become emotionally troubled by it has nothing to do with christian standards. it happens to christian and non christian alike. linking these things to "puritanical society" is reaching.
@normaspleen Okay, societal stigmas are created by the peole within the society and the residual effects of previous epochs. I'm sorry that you think that my problem is with christians, it's not. My problem is with the puritanical stigmas that have been handed down from previous generations. To think that I was just saying that one specific group was the problem is to completely miss the point. It is our society in general that's the problem, but it is supported by certain views of certain group
@MrSchnuffs i disagree completely. you say the "premarital sex isnt the issue, its the reaction". the reason there is any reaction to begin with is BECAUSE of the premarital sex. kids find out the girl had sex, kids make fun of her and call her a whore, etc. to deny this is true is completely insane. its true, ive seen it over and over.
@MrSchnuffs ..then we get to the point about how condoms are misused, and you blame it on the fact that the "kids arent taught properly". thats untrue. sex ed is being taught in public schools, and condoms are being misused by these kids as well. where i live, sex ed starts in 5th grade and continues every year for students. and trust me, condoms are still being misused as well as the other forms. so blaming it on "not being taught" is inaccurate and shows your arguments hold no truth.
@MrSchnuffs .. also, i never said that YOU personally said anything about the age children are taught sex ed. i was pointing out the fact that the liberal community which supports teaching sex ed over abstinence desires teaching children at younger and younger ages, there are even proposals for sex ed to begin in kindergarten and first grade. that is foolish, irresponsible, and frankly sick. kids that young have no business learning things of this nature.
@MrSchnuffs . also,no i didnt miss the point of your comparison. you said in your post you spoke "not about the slave btw.. the ones who stood up for them".. did you not read my post? heres an exact quote from mine "also, youre drawing comparison to those who fought for freedom of slaves "..not sure how you took that as me comparing the slaves themselves. but to the point, your comparison is silly. your comparing a person who fought for those being enslaved, beaten, etc and being insulted (con)
@MrSchnuffs (con) to a girl having sex before marriage and being made fun of. comparing these two as the same is a complete joke. one was standing up for other humans being brutally enslaved and mistreated and in turn was insulted and harassed, the other had sex and kids called her mean names. this comparison is a complete failure.
@MrSchnuffs also, you say "the problem isnt the sex but the people who insult others based on it". the insulting is a problem, but what brings about the harassment? the premarital sex. so it goes back to what i said, premarital DOES bring emotional consequences. also, youre drawing comparison to those who fought for freedom of slaves and those who have sex before they are married...these two are uncomparable, and to even try to say they are is flat out foolish and silly.
@normaspleen The premarital sex isn't the issue, it's the reaction to it. Premarital sex doesn't cause people to insult others. To say anything even remotely like that is insane and ultimately creates a repressive society. If you look throughout history there are many examples of sex not being considered "dirty", and those societies weren't any more or less immoral than other ones. The Greeks, the Romans; the list goes on. Your position holds no weight in this regard.
@MrSchnuffs you also said there isnt only one solution to the problem, but look at the facts. which method is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and std? ONLY abstinence. condoms and other forms CAN be UP TO 98% effective at preventing these things. but how common is it that they are misused or even sometimes defective? very. so on one hand your "solution" is only capable of reducing the risk, while abstinence can 100% prevent it. you have no argument.
@normaspleen The problem with your statement about condoms not being used correctly is that your view is part of the problem. They aren't used correctly because teens don't know how to use them. Why is this? Because they haven't been taught. Btw, I never said anything about the age we should teach kids about sex so that argument falls flat. You have also not addressed my actual evidence that not teaching kids leads to more problems than teaching them.
@normaspleen You missed the point I was trying to make with the my example of slavery. I wasn't trying to show that slavery and sex were equal. I was trying to show that people being insulted or abused or maligned against (not the slaves btw, the ones who stood up for them... which I specifically said in my post) are not the ones in the wrong, it's the people who insult them who are wrong. This is pretty self-evident actually. If everyone made fun of your beliefs, would it be your fault or their
@MrSchnuffs the backward way of thinking is to give children, at increasingly younger and disturbingly young ages mind you, condoms at school and tell them "if you decide to have sex, use this". its pretty much inviting them to do it. not to mention how in todays society its ok for kids to recieve birth control without a parents consent, and even cases where kids get abortions without parents consent. it giving children a license to have sex as they please, and the results are well seen.
@normaspleen and on the last note, they are your standards. Just because you accept that they are someone else's (Gods) doesn't make them any less yours. You accept them as correct and live your life by them, so they are yours whether you believe them or not. Also, even if they were objective, they are only your subjective interpretation. Many people see the bible as metaphor, and not literal because it is their subjective analysis of the text. The same goes for literalists. Again, self-evident
@MrSchnuffs and finally, they are not my standards. i had my own standards before i came to christ. they were like the worlds standards. i have confessed christ as my lord and saviour, and now live by the laws and statutes of the living god, but that doesnt make them mine. no human could/would ever have standards like gods. living by gods standards doesnt make them mine. ive just submitted the his lordship over my life. i do not "decide" whats right or wrong, god revealed that to us in his word.
@normaspleen To continue on the assertion that they aren't your standards, that is completely false. To give you an idea of what I mean, there are many other religions in the world who hold the view that their god, and their standards are absolute. Why are your views correct and theirs are not? Would their belief not be every bit as devout as yours? They can't both be absolute truth, but all parties treat them as such. Are their beliefs subjective and yours objective?
@normaspleen To go a little further, what you read in the bible is entirely subjective. Though it can claim to be the objective word of god, in the end it's not god who's reading it, it's you. Because it is your mind that is interpreting it, choosing which passages are relevant to certain situations, which laws to uphold and which to throw by the wayside, it is entirely subjective. The bible condones many things that are considered intrinsically immoral, and others that are just silly.
@normaspleen And until you can reconcile those facts, and even if you do, you must accept that how you read the bible in itself is a subjective matter, no matter if you believe that it is the objective word of god. Every experience we have is subjective, from your belief in god, to how we view colors, to how we perceive the world around us, to what we interpret out of any book, the bible included. This is self-evident.
@normaspleen You are still deciding what standards you wish to live your life by, even if those standards are given to you by divine command. You still decide what is right or wrong because you decide to believe in something that tells you right and wrong. And just to say that it will send the world in a downward spiral if we don't adhere is false and flawed. There was a time when christianity ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages
@MrSchnuffs .. also, to deny the moral decay of america is to deny truth. this country was founded on christianity, biblical principles. over time, the bible and prayer, god, has been removed from schools etc, and the results are clear. marriage isnt viewed as sacred anymore, its no big deal, and theres even pushes to eliminate it as its being deemed by some as "pointless". why get married and make the committment when you can just move in together and not be bound? thats todays mindset.
@normaspleen how do you tell which one is correct? How is your assertion that your moral truth is better than theirs in any way objective? It is subjective in nature. It is your decision to follow, your decision to believe and it is your decision to view the bible as truth. If it isn't then you don't have free will. If you don't have free will then the bible is false. Free will is predicated upon the notion that everything you do is your choice, and that includes what you believe.
@normaspleen As soon as you are able to decide something, your decision by it's very nature is subjective, even if your belief is that something is objective, like divine standards of conduct. So, if it's your choice to follow these commandments that God has given to you, then your moral code, though dictated by god, is still is your decision and thus is subjective in nature.
@MrSchnuffs you can also look to the culture, things like movies and tv, music. not too long ago they refused to show elvis from the waist down because it was too "sexually suggestive and provocative". we had things like the hays code in regard to films and movies which strictly stood against things like graphic violence, sex or suggestive themes, coarse language. look what we have now. sex is glorified. its everywhere,just like violence. you really believe our society hasnt become more violent?
@normaspleen Just to make one thing crystal clear, your country was founded on enlightenment principles, not christian ones. The founding fathers were englishmen looking for englishmens rights, and a large number of them were deist and thought that religion had no place in politics. Read any number of Thomas Jeffersons letters, The treaty of Tripoli (signed by John Adams), The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine eetc etc. ad infinitum. They in no way founded the US on Christian principles.
@MrSchnuffs or look to the 1892 supreme court ruling in church of the holy trinity vs us, " Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." again, you ignore these facts as most of society does these days.
@normaspleen Now, you say that I ignore facts. That isn't correct in the least. What I do is actually research these facts and make sure that I present them in the manner they were intended to be. If you actually looked into the history of America without selectively taking only what is relevant to your cause, you will find that most of what you assert is incorrect. The quotes are mined and the people are misrepresented. In both aspects you take them out of context.
@MrSchnuffs also, they arent my standards. you can try to rationalize that all you want, but it changes nothing. men arent capable of holy standards. if i made my own standards, i would be like the world, which is ok with murdering babies, which views sex and marriage as no big thing, etc. those are the standards of unholy men. i have submitted to gods standards. the whole idea of "everything is subjective" is just the worlds foolishness.
@normaspleen Now about standards, this is what I'll say. I don't doubt that you believe that you're adhering to divine standards but that doesn't ipso facto make them objective. Think of it this way. Muslims believe with the exact same certainty that their moral compass is objective and given from god. Now, if you were both correct, there would be no contradiction or conflict between both your moral rules. But you can't both be correct because there is. So, one must not be objective right?
@normaspleen Now, I understand that you believe that your morality is objective, and that your standards are objective as well. The trouble is the reasoning you give is exactly the same as Muslims. There is no way to differentiate between the two (I'm speaking reasons why you believe, not the differences in the religious doctrines themselves). They both simply require faith, they both also think that their standards are not their own, but Gods.
@normaspleen But as I've shown there isn't any difference between each of your justifications. They both require the same thing, and they both construe themselves as correct. The reason I say this is because the only reason you seem to think that they are objective is because you believe that they are objective. This doesn't change the fact that YOU are the one who is deciding to believe in something, therefore making the whole ordeal subjective. If it were objective, everyone would know it.
@MrSchnuffs how many school shootings, kids beating people to death, murder and rape in general... and sex is viewed just as you said, "just a normal thing". its just something to do for pleasure and fun to people now. and since 1973, roughly 052,008,665 babies have been aborted, stds are now common and widespread, more single parents/broken families. i could go on and on. to deny these things is false and flawed,but such is the case with those who deny that the child a mother carries is human.
@normaspleen Again you need to study facts. There is a positive correlation between violence and puritan/religious thought. In places where sex isn't vilified or deemed impure there are demonstrably fewer cases of rape and sexual deviancy. School shootings and such are actually more prevalent in religious countries AKA the US. Though you may think that your country is turning away from God, it actually holds religion as being the most important factor in life.
@MrSchnuffs i know the facts. and i can discern lies when i see them too, and one of those is this idea your trying to get across that everything from violence,premarital sex, etc is because of religious thought. thats garbage. you completely avoid the real facts. look back in the not too distant history of this country when bible and prayer were still in schools, before the age of "political correctness and tolerance". it was unnacceptable to show people shaking their hips on tv!
@MrSchnuffs compare that to now and look at how sex outside is viewed in todays society as "normal" and acceptable. look at how marriage was viewed in the past as compared to now. think of abortion, it would never have been tolerated but now it "a womans right, its her body", or people try, and fail, to justify that the child a woman carries "isnt a person". these are the results of a people moving away from god. THESE ARE THE FACTS, AND ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.
@MrSchnuffs and to make one thing clear, this country WAS founded on christ. james madison was the principal author of the constitution. he said this "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded." catch that? he said "in the laws of god upon which the constitution is founded". and yet you say "they in no way founded the us on christian principles". trying pretty hard to rewrite history huh? not working.
@normaspleen First of all, an opinion is not a lie. I'm not lying to you, I'm stating what I see as problematic. Second of all I'm not saying that religion is the only reason these problems exist. They are a part of the problem, but not the whole problem in the least. What religion does do is stop inquiry and prevent further development because of its nature ie., unquestioning faith. Also, to think that women didn't have abortions until recently, or that people were somehow more "pure"
@MrSchnuffs first, i never said that these things NEVER happened, ive acknowledged several times that of course some people still did them, but it wasnt common as it is today. and like ive pointed out,since 73 abortions total 052,008,665. 38 years,over 52 million babies. to deny that it is far more common and accepted is naive. the same with sex and how its viewed. you cant deny the difference. weve gone from deeming it unacceptable to show someone shaking their hips to sex everywhere on screen.
@MrSchnuffs the whole argument that its just "talked about more" is complete garbage. anyone can look at the facts and see the truth. claiming weak and false arguments like this solves nothing. as for james madison, you didnt answer the question. he was the principal author of the constitution, and he himself said "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded." he himself said it was founded on gods word.
@MrSchnuffs he also said prior to the previous comment "We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future ...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." john adams summed it up nicely "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
@normaspleen Okay, I'm going to give you many James Madison quotes, because what you're doing is selectively taking quotes and then interpreting them as you see fit.
"Strongly guarded... is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."
@normaspleen "An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government."
@normaspleen "It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether"
@normaspleen There are many more quotes like this that advocate vehemently the separation of church and state. Their personal views on religion notwithstanding, the majority of founding fathers were deist, not christian. While some of them saw religion as a societal structure, it did not mean that they specifically believed it. john Adams was a devout man, but if you read the "treaty of Tripoli" he states very clearly that America is not a christian nation.
@MrSchnuffs its so funny to me that you talk of how "everything you think or believe, or experience is by definition subjective." then you say "im sorry you dont see it this way, but that is the truth." lol... its really a garbage argument. for instance, rape is always wrong. correct? theres nothing subjective about it. its always wrong. its the whole new age, everyone is their own god, decides for themself whats right and wrong mindset, and its foolish. truth is truth, and the truth is christ.
@normaspleen According to the definition of "subjective" it's not wrong at all. I even accounted for the possibility of objective morality, I just understand that it's clearly only a subjective interpretation of what is objective. Understanding that there is behavior that is both beneficial and detrimental to society doesn't equate to an ultimate good or bad, it just means that within the context of humanity, certain actions are better than others. This is not "objective"
@normaspleen At least in the way you're making it out to be. There is no reason to believe that this is an ultimate or objective morality, just one that is good for us. It's not about right or wrong, it's about good consequences as opposed to bad ones.
@normaspleen Though you might think that America is founded on christianity, I have given you many examples of how it is not, treaties signed, individuals quoted etc. Your need to support your claim by selective quote mining taken out of context demonstrates not that you haven't researched, but that you draw your conclusions before and look for corroborating evidence to support your narrow view. This is not how research, or finding truth works. It's dishonest to proselytize in this way.
@MrSchnuffs lol please.. i will take the principal author of the constitutions word when he said the constitution was "founded upon the laws of god", and that the whole "future and success of america is staked upon our ability to live according to the ten commandments of god". that is NOT taken out of context. say it is all you want, but everyone knows the truth, including you and all those who argue this country wasnt founded on christianity. you just dont like the truth.
@normaspleen Yes, that's what I'm doing, suppressing the truth. You've taken one quote out of context and based your entire argument on it while disregarding the plethora of evidence to the contrary. you probably think that Thomas Jefferson wasn't a deist either (you know, the guy who wrote the declaration of independence) What about all those quotes I gave you? Are they irrelevant, or wrong? You shouldn't selectively choose the facts you wish to accept, and those you wish to ignore.
@MrSchnuffs youre doing the very thing you accuse me of. i was the first to post various quotes and even a court case. your only response has been to say "ive taken them out of context". thats false,and im calling you out on it. im going to give his exact words, and you explain how they are taken out of context. (con)
@MrSchnuffs james madison ""We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.".. "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
@MrSchnuffs patrick henry : "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that his great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
@MrSchnuffs john jay, the first us supreme court chief justice : “ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of OUR CHRISTIAN NATION, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
@MrSchnuffs The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life (Gen 2:7), Liberty ( II Cor 3:17), and the Pursuit of Happiness (Ecc 3:3)". Notice that it says that men are created ,not that they evolved. Unalienable or inalienable rights are God given rights. it concludes," with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence "
in may of 1774 a resolution was drafted by jefferson for a "day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer". april 15,1775,when the mass. provincial congress led by hancock declared "In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us,as men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments .. the 11th of May next be set apart as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer .. to confess the sins ..to implore the Forgiveness of transgression"
@MrSchnuffs woodrow wilson knew and said that " America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements or righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scriptures." you also cannot hide the role christianity has played because gods word is found all over the place in our national monuments and buildings! for example : the lincoln memorial, inscribed with matt 18:7, the library of congress with verses from psalms, micah, prov on the walls.
@MrSchnuffs or in the supreme court building, where the words of the ten commandments are chiseled into marble slabs which hang directly over the seat of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. and state capitol buildings across america have scripture chisled into them, it goes on and on. theres no hiding it.
@MrSchnuffs you cannot hide the role christianity has played in our nations founding and history. you are indeed picking and choosing what you want to believe, twisting reality and intention to fit what you would like to see as the truth. like it or not, this country was founded on christ. and as john adams said "our constitution was made ONLY for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." this is evident today!
@normaspleen I;m pretty sure I never dismissed the fact that christianity played a ROLE in Americas history, my point is that it wasn't government sanctioned. A day of prayer is not exclusive to Christianity (btw, the resolution was written before the constitution or declaration of independence), nor does it claim to be. It doesn't "establish" a specific religion. One could very easily take that statement and pray to Allah.
@normaspleen Also, John Adams is quoted quite clearly, and wrote into law the fact that America isn't any more a christian nation than it is a jewish or mohammedan one. As for the supreme court and the ten commandments, the only way it was able to circumvent the first ammendment was to argue that Moses was an example of a lawgiver, and the commandments examples of laws; not that they were the laws that should govern the country.
@MrSchnuffs nope, stop deflecting and answer the questions. you made a claim that i took madisons and other quotes out of context. i gave the quotes, you tell me how they are out of context. the reason you didnt is because they are not out of context, therefore you cannot. it is as madison said "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
@normaspleen What is extremely important to differentiate is what was codified in the constitution as law, and what the personal opinions of the founding fathers were. As well as this I could easily say that there were 74 founding fathers and the opinions of a select few who share your views does not constitute a majority, or lend any validity to your claim, or that all of these men shared the same opinion. When I accuse you of quote mining it is because even if they held these views, cont
@MrSchnuffs just as i thought.. you make the claim, like all others that argue from your stance, that i took the words of so many "out of context", but then when asked in what way the words were out of context, you cannot answer the question directly. you say their views were not written into the constitution, but according to madisons words the constitution was founded on gods laws. maybe next time you claim something "out of context", be able to back it up.
@normaspleen They are out of context because the founding of america is based not on the personal opinions of founders, but on what they legislated and codified. They did not "found" the country on christian principles but secular ones. Some of them might have been christian, but they were also secular, and they legislated secular values. Nowhere in any legal document did they espouse religious vitues, so their personal opinions as to why they did so have no merit or validity.
@MrSchnuffs quote from you : "They did not "found" the country on christian principles "..
quote from james madison: "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the LAWS OF GOD UPON WHICH THIS CONSTITUTION IS FOUNDED."
@normaspleen We can trade quotes all day long. What matters is what is written IN the constitution. Your aversion to accept that is distressing. Whether James Madison wrote the constitution and based it upon the laws of god is irrelevant. What actually was written is. I could give you many quotes but I think they will miss the point. You brought up John Adams before as being on your side, but he wasn't. He was a christian but he was also was a secularist... And so was Madison
@normaspleen On top of that Madison was merely one man, not THE founder, but one of many. To say that simply because he was quoted to have said that means nothing in the context of ALL the founders. Even if HE thought those things it really doesn't amount to much as he was just one of 74. The reason your argument fails is that it only takes into account one mans opinion, and not all of the founders. Again, you're just selectively using quotes.
@MrSchnuffs no, YOUR argument was that "the country was not founded upon christian principles", which is false. thats the point im trying to get across. i find it funny for someone to say it wasnt when the principal author of our constitution said himself that the constitution was indeed founded upon the laws of god. your arguments fail because they are not based on truth, which is plain for all to see, but rather on a view and agenda to remove the role christ played in our founding and country.
@normaspleen This is ridiculous. I have given you plentiful evidence which showcases exactly what was intended by the first amendment, including Madison. One could easily interpret "Gods Laws" as general guidelines to follow without implying supernatural or absolute rules. As such it could also be said that even if you were correct, it still doesn't warrant the idea that it shouldn't change. The constitution was written not as gospel or unyielding. It has the ability to change.
@normaspleen And by the way, I did answer the question directly. i demonstrated that even if they believed in certain christian principles that they were also adamant about America being a secular nation. There is no evidence that within the writings of any formal document that they espoused differently. In fact they very blatantly said the opposite. Seriously, look up the treaty of tripoli. It spells out in very clear language their intentions.
@normaspleen They are not the views that were written into the constitution and shared by all of them. in fact, you seem to think that because one or two of them thought a certain way that there is reason to believe that it's the only reasoning behind anything. For instance, I can espouse the view that murder is wrong and justify it in a way that is completely different than your justification (Gods laws). Our outcome is the same but our principles are different. Doesn't change the outcome.
@normaspleen Furthermore what they truly stood for was the separation of church and state. Even if they thought that beneath that people must adhere to gods laws it doesn't matter, the constitution is still supreme in law. They didn't codify "gods laws" in the constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say anything close to that. As the constitution is a legal document, the personal opinions of some of the founding fathers are of no consequence, as they aren't law.
@normaspleen One must also say that the founding fathers were in support of slavery (the majority of them anyway), Jefferson thought that black people were lesser than whites. should we simply accept that he was correct in his opinion there as well simply by virtue of him being a founding father? No, of course not. What we take as their intentions are what they legislated, not their opinions after the fact, or the reasons behind what they wrote, and they didn't establish christianity as law
@normaspleen Now, the problem with your claim is that it America is supposed to be free. People are free to practice whatever religion they want, and the government should make no laws that show a preference of one religion over another. To say that America is a "Christian nation" is to miss the point. If the constitution is held to be absolute in law (which it is), then it contradicts itself if your assertion is true. Your claimis nothing more than an appeal to authority, and a poor one at that
@MrSchnuffs you can try all you want to explain these away or brush them to the side, but the glaring truth of our foundation on christianity shines for all to see. and as far as the standards, i say again they are not mine. i didnt create them. men create their own standards, and it looks like what you see in the world. mens standards say sex is just a normal thing for whenever, with whoever. abortion is acceptable. violence, theft, etc. gods standard is complete holiness.
@normaspleen in the fifties is a naive and juvenile assumption. Was there no corruption either? The reason it seems that way is because people didn't talk about it, not because those things didn't happen. Sweeping it under a rug and not looking at it doesn't solve any problems. As for James Madison, perhaps just a quote from him will do "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise? That doesn't sound very devout to me.
@MrSchnuffs i have submitted to gods standards and laws, not living by my own. as far as the muslims or whoever else, just because it construes itself as correct or claims islam the way doesnt make it so. its not. there is only ONE way. jesus said " i am the way, the truth, and the life. no one comes to the father except through me." i follow the living god, the one true gods standards. not my own.
@normaspleen Also, you simply asserting that the standards are not your own doesn't change the fact that you subjectively choose to see them as objective. It's a fairly clear distinction. Though they may in fact be objective morality, the morals you choose are demonstrably subjective, and always will be for they rely on your decision to accept them as true. Everybody has things that they deem as good and bad, and everybody has reasons for these. Because you rely on the bible is no different
@normaspleen doesn't change this. It is merely a different way of determining what's right and wrong. I'm sorry you don't see it that way, but that is the truth. Your belief leads you to accept these things as objective, and I really do respect that, but it's still subjective because YOU have to accept is as true. Anything that you think, or belief, or experience is by definition subjective. To not accept this is to change the definition of objective and subjective completely.
@MrSchnuffs and as far as the foundation of the country, abortion, etc,we clearly disagree on these issues. i have studied and firmly believe and know without a doubt that this country was founded on biblical principles by god fearing men. and i am aware of the new age effort to rewrite that as well. it saddens me just as the ongoing slaughter of innocent babies in this country. but all of these sinful and wicked acts coincide with the moving away from god by the american people. god forgive us.
@normaspleen Oh yes, I almost forgot. The quote from the Treaty of Tripoli that was penned by John Adams is this "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]"
@normaspleen As for your assertion that the supreme court ruled in favor of a christian nation is both false and manipulative. The court case in question wasn't about religion in the least, it was about migrant workers. Furthermore, any mention of religion in the ruling are irrelevant and considered "dictum" The question in front of the court never had anything to do with a "Christian Nation" it was never part of the case, not should it be construed as such.
@normaspleen And coincidentally has the highest rate of crime among advanced and developed nations. These are FACTS, and are not in dispute. your version of morality has been proven to be false for the betterment of society, and for a general happy and productive life. Your "moral decay" of America is in fact non-existent except in the context of your religion. It has shown itself to have a negative effect on personal efficacy and well-being.
@MrSchnuffs and finally, they are not MY standards. i have chosen to live by GODS standards, but that doesnt make them mine. i am a man, created by god. our standards and thoughts are nowhere near gods. if i lived by my standards, i would look as the world looks, deciding for myself what is right and wrong. but thats why we are having this argument, because the creation has decided to put itself in place of creator, and the consequences of it are sending the world into a downward spiral.
@normaspleen Someone who spoke out against slavery would be maligned as well, but that is now considered noble, because black peoples rights were being infringed upon. Though they undoubtably felt ostracized and suffered "emotional distress" from this, they are considered noble. I only say this to drive home the fact that it is not the act in itself which is wrong, it is peoples preconceived notions of what is right that are.
@normaspleen To get back to my comment about natural. What I am implying is that sex is natural, marital or premarital. It is a biological function. Is it more than that, maybe, maybe not. That depends on who's doing it and for what reasons. On top of that, just because abstinence prevents pregnancy and stds 100% of the time isn't sufficient answer. 98% vs 100% are not that far apart. Again you seem to think that there is only one solution to the problem, there isn't.
@normaspleen You simply asserting that abstinence is the only way doesn't solve the problem in the least. In fact it adds to it. Studies have shown, as I've said before, that teens who are taught abstinence only end up having higher rates of stds and pregnancies. Why is this? It's because they all eventually end up having premarital sex, but they aren't given the education to combat stds and pregnancy without abstinence. This seems like a backward way of thinking, and more problematic as well.
@normaspleen One more thing. They are your standards even if you say they are somebody else's. It is your decision to believe that God commanded them, it is your decision to follow them, therefore they are your standards as well as whoever you attribute them to. It is your subjectivity that interprets the commandments as true. We all by nature determine our core values subjectively. There may be an objective morality, but out interpretations of what they might be are subjective.
@MrSchnuffs (con) also, you say things like "premarital sex is natural" and that "abstinence is ineffective and dangerous", and then say "i shouldnt hold others to my standards." you are doing the very thing youre telling me i shouldnt do. and also, to clarify, they are not MY standards. they are the commandments of the one true creator god. and wether you believe it or not, these commandments ARE indeed universal, and for all humans to follow, and each will give an account thereof one day.
@normaspleen The truth is that most everyone has premarital sex, not because it's glorified, but because it's natural. What we need to do is not call these people "sinners", but try to alleviate the risks that can be associated with sex. This is the moral thing to do, not to teach some outdated doctrine that has no relevance in todays society, but to accept that it happens and move on from there. Even if it is "immoral" as you say, it doesn't help anyone to put your head in the sand about it.
@normaspleen On top of that, the problems you relate to premarital sex are unfounded and wrong. The only reason anyone has emotional problems over premarital sex would be because of the puritanical connotations that are imbued on it by people like you. There wouldn't be any emotional turmoil over sex if it weren't presented as an immoral and wrongful act. And those that don't think like you do about it have very different opinions on whether it is wrong or not.
@normaspleen The problem as I see it is that you're holding everyone up to your morality. You probably see it as an emotional problem if one doesn't think like you and that is horribly judgmental and unjustified. Not everyone sees the world through your eyes, or considers the same things immoral or wrong. Your "truth" isn't universal for all humans, and you shouldn't expect others to adhere to your moral rules.
@MrSchnuffs (con) there are undeniable physical and emotional risks involved with premarital sex, regardless of wether or not contraception is used. at best, contraception can only reduce the risk of pregnancy and std, abstinence 100% guarantees no pregnancy or disease. the center for disease control concluded itself that "condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD". to me, dangerous is telling young kids that using a condom makes "safe sex". thats a lie.
@normaspleen Furthermore, teaching abstinence has been shown to be ineffective and in fact is downright dangerous. If you look up statistics of "abstinence only" teachings, there is a larger rate of stds (from not knowing how to use a condom) and more pregnancies (again from not knowing). The whole problem could be alleviated by presenting information about sex and safety, but when one takes an absolute stance on something, there can't be any exceptions. This is demonstrably destructive.
You simply assert things without justifying them. Your belief doesn't constitute reason. you want my justification, here it is. What is the criteria for being human, what are our characteristics. here they are; sentience; emotionality; capacity to reason; self-awareness; and moral agency. I will note here that all of these characteristics do not need to be filled in order to be considered a person,just some of them.A fetus doesn't fill any of these criteria, thus shouldn't be considered a person
(cont) and you said to you the criteria for being human is this: emotionality, capacity to reason, self awareness, moral agency, and because a fetus in the early stages doesnt demonstrate these things, it isnt human. thats nonsense. ive had loved ones and witnessed plenty of people with mental deficiency, etc, who have no moral compass or capacity to reason, or who have no self awareness or emotion. so by your logic, they are not or are no longer human. that logic is rediculous.
@normaspleen First of all, I never said that they fetuses weren't human, I said they didn't fill the criteria for personhood. But as I said, they do not need to fill all of the criteria to be considered a person, so your argument falls flat. People with mental deficiencies still fill some of the criteria, thus they can be considered a person. If someone is just an empty shell, on the other hand, with no brain activity to fill any of the criteria, then I'd say it's permissible to end their life
@normaspleen And why is it nonsense that I've given you criteria for personhood. What is the problem with it. I make a distinction between something being genetically human, and having the capacity to act like a human. If genetics were the only criteria and with our medical technology in cloning as advanced as it is, just scratching our noses constitutes a holocaust of potential humans. It's not me who is arguing the "potential" angle, it is you. You're saying that they are all potentially human
@normaspleen you may think that my logic is ridiculous, but I really fail to see how it is. All you're doing is asserting that killing a fetus is murder. That's it, you haven't raised any reason why it is other than the fact that it is genetically human. But many things are genetically human, they can grow human tissue in labs - does that constitute something immoral? Is it wrong that we don't let these things grow further, after all they have the same DNA as us. Your position lacks any insight.
no, my position doesnt lack insight, it lacks foolish excuses being made to try and justify ending an unborn childs life. so far, your reasons to doubt a fetus's humanity have been its incapability to be claimed as a tax deduction, its lack of emotion, lack of morals, and bc a fetus doesnt fill these criteria, in your words it "thus shouldnt be considered a person". boy, these arguments are just flowing with logic and insight.... none of these excuses work. you cant justify murder.
@normaspleen Ok, let's try a different tactic. What do you think should happen to women who have abortions? If it is premeditated murder as you say, they should be charged and incarcerated with life in prison, or perhaps even given the death penalty, right?
obviously you cannot charge those who have had abortions for something deemed legal.abortion should have never been made legal,and should be made illegal now. in that case,yes, i find abortion to be murder. i remember hearing a case a while back of a pregnant woman being attacked while somewhere in the 1st trimester, and lost the baby. attacker was charged with the babies death. in that case, its murder to people but somehow when the mother kills it herself its not? makes no sense.
@normaspleen Well, by that rational any woman who does anything that harms the baby while she is pregnant should be charged with assault. If she has a drink, or any other manner of things that is constituting an assault on the baby (I am not condoning this action btw) Look, by your standards the woman gives up all of her personal rights for nine months and this is just intuitively wrong. You think sex is immoral, that's fine; it's your prerogative.
@normaspleen But the choices you make in your life don't equate to the choices everybody must make. On top of that, there are many studies that show that legalizing abortions have a positive effect on society in many ways. Most unwanted pregnancies happen in poorer areas. When women have control over their bodies, this means arguably less poverty and crime. (the book freakonomics) Also, it gives women more efficacy over their lives, which is also beneficial to society.
@normaspleen when women have reproductive rights, they are able to continue with their careers and stay a valuable asset in the work force, which is the mark of truly advanced civilizations, and it usually goes hand in hand with economic success. In fact, many people have argued that in order for third world countries to progress, women need this efficacy for the countries themselves to prosper. Your position requires this rigid rule that every life is sacred, but you have yet to demonstrate it.
@normaspleen As I've said before, if every life were sacred, than why don't people do more for starving children in Africa? Why don't they try to fund more social programs for single mothers? Why don't they? Because the truth is that carrying the child to term and caring for it is punishment for an immoral act ie., sex. The sanctity of life means less to pro-life advocates than pro-choice. They don't care about the baby after it's born, the quality of life it will have because it's punishment.
every life IS sacred. youre trying to bring in completely seperate issues on world hunger and social programs. and your view shows your immorality. to you, carrying YOUR child to term and caring for it is "a punishment". to me, it is a child, a human being, and no one has a right to end its life for convenience sake. i guess thats where we differ, i dont view a child as a "punishment". this attitude is why abortion is so common in our country. its sad.
@normaspleen It's not a separate issue, they are intrinsically related. If every life is sacred, then EVERY life is sacred, no matter if it's in Africa or anywhere else. So, if we go by the claim that everylife is sacred and deserves a chance to live or a life that's not full of pain and suffering than these issues should affect you as much as abortion does. Social programs to aid mothers who keep their child are few and far between. you think you'd be for these though, as they help your cause.
@normaspleen And by the way, I never said that I saw pregnancies as punishment, I'm saying that pro-lifers do this. When you view sex as immoral, the result of it (pregnancy out of wedlock etc) inevitably becomes punishment for a sin. If I thought that it was divine punishment, I would have to take the position that it should be carried to term - as part of the punishment. I don't see it that way at all though. How is that not clear?
sex outside of marriage IS immoral, and yes, sinful. but that doesnt make pregnancy a punishment...dont know where you got that silly idea. the bible teaches that all are "fearfully and wonderfully made". as i said, all life is sacred, and parents are given the RESPONSIBILITY to care for, raise, and love the child god has created and given to them. but in todays society, its acceptable to have sex with anyone at anytime. sex is promoted and glorified. (cont)
@MrSchnuffs (cont) there is no value of life anymore. women/ young girls have sex, get pregnant, and abort the baby if they dont want it. how many babies do you think have been aborted for no other reason than the mother/father just simply dont want a child at the time or dont feel ready? the pro choice group says its a womans "right", its her body, all while ignoring the life of the baby growing inside of the womb. its somehow perfectly acceptable to take its life. (cont)
@normaspleen Wait, why is sex outside of marriage sinful? And where in the bible does it say anything about abortions? Also, even if it is acceptable to have sex at any time, that has no bearing on if there isn't any value to life. That's a complete non-sequitur. Your whole argument now seems to hinge on this being a crime against God. What lunacy. How does God feel about the neglected starving children in third world countries. Why can't we work on making the lives of people who are (cont)
@MrSchnuffs sex outside marriage is sinful bc almighty god said it is. and you say, "why dont we worry about the lives of people already born instead of worrying about the ones who arent", which is funny, bc you acknowledged the unborn as people. according to your logic, dont worry about the millions of babies being slaughtered yearly. forget about that for now. we can only focus on those already born. if you dont see the flaw in that, theres a problem.
@normaspleen That's not an answer. At best it's an argument from authority. It offers no justification as to why sex outside of marriage is immoral. It simply states that because someone (God, or whoever) decrees something to immoral than it is. Forgive me if I try to field through the absurdities of that to try to justify my own conclusions. you have not placed a reasoned argument in opposition to abortion and you also place too much faith in an unknowable objective morality.
@MrSchnuffs i'll tell you what is intellectually dishonest, saying the baby is not a "person". please.. and fine, you say "a fetus is a human", well there you go. now, answer this question. if the fetus is indeed human, as you yourself just said, what is being destroyed when a person has an abortion? A HUMAN. you cannot pick and choose which humans its "moral" to kill, and which it would be considered murder to kill. continue fielding through the absurdity of your so called "arguments".
@normaspleen Yes, because making distinctions is a bad thing? I said that they were genetically human. A fetus isn't a person, that is pretty self-evident. Also, we do have the ability to pick and choose who lives and dies. Capital punishment is an example, wars are another. In fact, people who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors also "pick and choose" who is allowed to live and die. Though they are extreme cases, they do show that we do pick who can live and die.
@MrSchnuffs you didnt answer the question. you admitted the fetus was human. if you destroy the fetus, what are destroying then. the answer is human life. and comparing things such as death penalty for those guilty of murdering and other horrible crimes or those lost killed in war to a baby in the womb being aborted is silly and you know it. youre really reaching. and ive already told you why sex outside of marriage is immoral. god is very clear on this matter in his word, the bible. (con)
@MrSchnuffs (con) the bible is also very clear on the issue of murder. god is so holy that he said that "he who hates his brother is guilty of murder". psalm 139:13-16 tells us that god formed us in the womb, and that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. exodus 21:22-23 speaks of the loss of baby in the womb as a crime. the bible is very clear. you can try to explain it away or simply choose not to believe, it doesnt change the reality of it and the fact that all will give an account to god.
@normaspleen Well, there are passages from exodus that state that abortions (miscarriages caused by abuse) are not considered as bad as murder. You're whole argument hinges on murder being bad (which is correct), but doesn't make a case for when something is murder. Again, you're asserting something without justifying it. So, to answer you question, yes the fetus is human. If we destroy the fetus... surprise, surprise, what we are destroying is a fetus. A human fetus, but a fetus nonetheless.
@MrSchnuffs i dont have to justify the bible. it doesnt matter whether you like it or not, its truth. as the bible says, "each man is appointed once to die, and after that to face judgement." everyone will give an account to the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob to whose holy standard we are COMMANDED to live by. when you destroy a fetus, you destroy and prevent a human from entering the world. thats murder. just saying.
@normaspleen Look, if you say that something is th truth, you need to be able to justify why you believe it is. What is it about the moral guidance of the bible that makes it the truth? It is actually the most important question. Why would we be COMMANDED by God to do anything. Why would just being subservient to him get u
Ackh, bicker bicker bicker bicker bicker. These people can't just calm down and let the man say something, they have to talk over top of multiple people at once. Ackh!
CplFerro 1 day ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Funny how leftists have no qualms about killing unborn children, but when it comes to necrophiliacs, THAT IS SO HARSH xD
Crobat87 2 weeks ago
Fuck yea lets murder babie but heaven forbid we allow the gays to adopt. This country is getting ass backwards.
cblazer 2 months ago 2
It is this simple, anyone who supports willy nilly abortion is against the fundamental basics of life. You are death and the literal mortal enemy of everything this world is. They're are exceptions but this is out of hand your committing genocide for convenience on your CHILDREN millions and millions.
cblazer 2 months ago
Other animals let their young die when they don't want to keep them; why not humans?
Avensadora 3 months ago
@Avensadora Other animals kill each other. Why not humans? Because we have deemed that murder is wrong. When a drunk driver hits a pregnant woman and kills the fetus, that is considered murder. Why is it murder for the drunk driver but legal abortion for the mother?
velosojan 3 months ago
@Avensadora We haven't been in the jungle for millions of years. We have empathy.... well some do.
BTW have you ever read how some animals will nurse abandoned young of other species? I assume your alive so you should support life.It's an all for one, one for all things, unless YOU wanna die I can't deny your' will, but we can not allow you to deny others. and by that we mean the unspoken fetus stripped of a chance before the first breath.
cblazer 2 months ago
@grandtheftauto5588 what do you mean they "aren't formed babies yet"? A third trimester abortion is legal in this country. At what form does a human become important enough to have his or her life and rights protected according to you?
bazookafluke 3 months ago
@sueezee1 no i'm not kidding. If you want to justify killing unborn babies and insult people who want to protect their life and rights go right ahead, you're not stopping the opposition one bit
bazookafluke 3 months ago
I do not want the women who are having multiple abortions per year, or life to be raising kids, nor am I fond of encouraging the perpetuating of their genes into the population.
Also, the argument that life begins at conception is silly. Life is a process, which includes conception. Life begins when life becomes possible. When there are sperm and ovaries.
Therefore, If one believes that the creation of life is God's will then we better not refuse any sexual invitation, or our own desire.
Sweisend40 3 months ago
I do not want the women who are having multiple abortions per year, or life to be raising kid, nor am I fond of encouraging the perpetuating of their genes into the population.
Also, the argument that life begins at conception is silly. Life is a process, which includes conception. Life begins when life becomes possible. When there are sperm and ovaries.
Therefore, If one believes that the creation of life is God's will then we better not refuse any sexual invitation, or our own desire.
Sweisend40 3 months ago
I've got a solution to stop even the "need" for abortions: people, stop fuckin'.
MrSheptical 4 months ago in playlist More videos from oldbirdhat
@MrSheptical
Foreveralone.jpeg
Ghost31191 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrSheptical says: I've got a solution to stop even the "need" for abortions: people, stop fuckin'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You obviously have a fear of human sexuality. Why dont you get some help for that?
Sueezee1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012
JawsJaws 4 months ago in playlist More videos from oldbirdhat
i know girls that have had 3 abortions.
lilbeaveymac 4 months ago
Actually, there are a lot of people who wake up and decide to have an abortion, aborting 3 or 4 babies a year as a birth control.
malikzzzzz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING FISTING AFISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL NAL FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTINGFISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING FISTING ANAL FISTING FISTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
opo736 7 months ago
I love how pretentious pro choice militants are so intense about protecting a woman's rights, completely ignoring the fact that some of the unborn babies they have no qualms about killing will grow to be women. It's insanity and IMO completely indicitative of how self-centered and irresponsible our society has become.
bazookafluke 9 months ago 4
@bazookafluke the "babies" that they are aborting aren't formed babies yet
grandtheftauto5588 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bazookafluke says: It's insanity and IMO completely indicitative of how self-centered and irresponsible our society has become.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"has become"...as if abortion is something new? This has been going on since the beginning of time. Stop the uneducated drama!!
Sueezee1 3 months ago
@bazookafluke says:completely ignoring the fact that some of the unborn babies they have no qualms about killing will grow to be women.
~~~~~~~~~~ Youre kidding, right??? You think we want unwanted females born because they are females? Our n motto is "all children to be wanted children". Youre fast talk with only affect dumbasses & they're harmless.
Sueezee1 3 months ago
Man should not shed innocent blood in his hands. Abortion is and will always be wrong!!!! You can't shoot a man and kill him after he slaughters your family but you can kill a baby?? Hahaha this country is so fucked up.
FannyPakMan 10 months ago
@FannyPakMan says: Abortion is and will always be wrong!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wrong according to whose idea of right and or wrong? Yours? Sorry sweretie, your ideas mean squat here.
Sueezee1 3 months ago
That was the kind of answer I was looking for, thank you. Although I must protest about the sex before marriage comments. There is no reason to believe that pre-marital sex encourages more stds. What does encourage more stds is not realizing that pre-marrital sex will happen. If we don't teach young people to be safe, that is where the real problem will of stds is. Although I will allow that abstinence is the best way to not get stds, it is also impractical. Young people have sex
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs i disagree when you say "theres no reason to believe premarital sex encourages more stds". stds are so wide spread because of premarital and extramarital sex. if sex was exclusively for marriage, we wouldnt have the massive problem we have today. i also dont find abstinence "impractical". im not saying premarital will never happen, of course it will. but abstinence is not impractical, it used to be the norm. look how far weve fallen and the consequences thereof.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen I'm sorry but if you make a statement like "abstinence used to be the norm", you really have to be able to back that up with some hard facts. There is no reason to believe that civilization (christian or otherwise) has just suddenly allowed premarital sex. In fact it's been prevalent throughout history. The problem comes from what people associate with it. For example, in ancient times it wasn't considered adultery if you fornicated with a slave.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs lol please.. abstinence was the norm in this country. and again, im not saying absolutely no one ever had premarital, or course some did, but the majority did not. sex was not glorified in every facet of life like it is today. its not the fact that as you say "society has just suddenly allowed premarital", premarital has just become more common as morality in america has declined. and in turn, more stds, more widespread, and now the abortion issue. (con)
normaspleen 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs (con) furthermore,abstinence is the ONLY way to get 100% protection from stds and pregnancy. you cant argue against that fact. you say teaching abstinence is dangerous, and that just shows the mindset of todays society,and the consequences of it can be seen clearly. the danger is teaching sex is "normal", instead of that it is a sacred thing created by god for marriage. giving kids condoms, very young kids at that, and telling them "if you have sex, make sure to use this" is foolish.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen I said teaching ONLY abstinence is dangerous. But other than that, you may want to do a little research into safe sex. Condoms have are 98% effective. When combined with other forms of birth control they further decrease the rate of pregnancy. They are also instrumental in preventing stds. The problem here is that because you think that sex is immoral that you should prevent it altogether. This doesn't help anyone without your specific worldview.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs first off, abstinence 100% guarantees no std, no pregnancy. condoms or other forms cannot do that. thats a fact. all they can do is decrease the risk at best. and dont even try to say problems associated with premarital sex like pregnancy, spread of std, abortion, emotional issues are unfounded and wrong. theres no arguing it. these are all very real consequences of it. and there are many reasons for emotional distress that come from premarital. (con)
normaspleen 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs (con) ive heard young girls explaining how their decision to have premarital has destroyed them, not because of "puritanical connotations". some girls go to school to be tormented, called a whore and laughed at when it spreads around school, or in these days when they are put on a wall of shame on facebook. some girls give themselves because they believe they are in love, only to be ditched and shattered emotionally, regretting their decision. the reasons are endless. (con)
normaspleen 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs (con) and again i go back to abstinence, if people abstained from sex until marriage, it would eliminate all of these things! no pregnancy out of wedlock, no spread of std, no children emotionally battered and confused, a massive reduction in abortion.. it goes on and on. this cannot be said for using "protection". all it can do is reduce the risk.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen All the problems you talk of are the result of the stigmatization that happens in a puritanical society. The only reason they're considered whores, sluts or any other derogatory name is because of the views of the general populace on sex. On top of that the problem doesn't seem to be the sex but the people who insult others based on it. You shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the people doing wrong are the people who perpetrate the insults, not the girl.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs your answer to everything is to simply attribute it to a "puritanical society",when that is far from the case. these girls are called horrible names by kids at school who are NOT christian. and the instance of girls giving theirselves because they believe they are truly in love, only to be ditched and become emotionally troubled by it has nothing to do with christian standards. it happens to christian and non christian alike. linking these things to "puritanical society" is reaching.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen Okay, societal stigmas are created by the peole within the society and the residual effects of previous epochs. I'm sorry that you think that my problem is with christians, it's not. My problem is with the puritanical stigmas that have been handed down from previous generations. To think that I was just saying that one specific group was the problem is to completely miss the point. It is our society in general that's the problem, but it is supported by certain views of certain group
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs i disagree completely. you say the "premarital sex isnt the issue, its the reaction". the reason there is any reaction to begin with is BECAUSE of the premarital sex. kids find out the girl had sex, kids make fun of her and call her a whore, etc. to deny this is true is completely insane. its true, ive seen it over and over.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs ..then we get to the point about how condoms are misused, and you blame it on the fact that the "kids arent taught properly". thats untrue. sex ed is being taught in public schools, and condoms are being misused by these kids as well. where i live, sex ed starts in 5th grade and continues every year for students. and trust me, condoms are still being misused as well as the other forms. so blaming it on "not being taught" is inaccurate and shows your arguments hold no truth.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs .. also, i never said that YOU personally said anything about the age children are taught sex ed. i was pointing out the fact that the liberal community which supports teaching sex ed over abstinence desires teaching children at younger and younger ages, there are even proposals for sex ed to begin in kindergarten and first grade. that is foolish, irresponsible, and frankly sick. kids that young have no business learning things of this nature.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs . also,no i didnt miss the point of your comparison. you said in your post you spoke "not about the slave btw.. the ones who stood up for them".. did you not read my post? heres an exact quote from mine "also, youre drawing comparison to those who fought for freedom of slaves "..not sure how you took that as me comparing the slaves themselves. but to the point, your comparison is silly. your comparing a person who fought for those being enslaved, beaten, etc and being insulted (con)
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs (con) to a girl having sex before marriage and being made fun of. comparing these two as the same is a complete joke. one was standing up for other humans being brutally enslaved and mistreated and in turn was insulted and harassed, the other had sex and kids called her mean names. this comparison is a complete failure.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs also, you say "the problem isnt the sex but the people who insult others based on it". the insulting is a problem, but what brings about the harassment? the premarital sex. so it goes back to what i said, premarital DOES bring emotional consequences. also, youre drawing comparison to those who fought for freedom of slaves and those who have sex before they are married...these two are uncomparable, and to even try to say they are is flat out foolish and silly.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen The premarital sex isn't the issue, it's the reaction to it. Premarital sex doesn't cause people to insult others. To say anything even remotely like that is insane and ultimately creates a repressive society. If you look throughout history there are many examples of sex not being considered "dirty", and those societies weren't any more or less immoral than other ones. The Greeks, the Romans; the list goes on. Your position holds no weight in this regard.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs you also said there isnt only one solution to the problem, but look at the facts. which method is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and std? ONLY abstinence. condoms and other forms CAN be UP TO 98% effective at preventing these things. but how common is it that they are misused or even sometimes defective? very. so on one hand your "solution" is only capable of reducing the risk, while abstinence can 100% prevent it. you have no argument.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen The problem with your statement about condoms not being used correctly is that your view is part of the problem. They aren't used correctly because teens don't know how to use them. Why is this? Because they haven't been taught. Btw, I never said anything about the age we should teach kids about sex so that argument falls flat. You have also not addressed my actual evidence that not teaching kids leads to more problems than teaching them.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@normaspleen You missed the point I was trying to make with the my example of slavery. I wasn't trying to show that slavery and sex were equal. I was trying to show that people being insulted or abused or maligned against (not the slaves btw, the ones who stood up for them... which I specifically said in my post) are not the ones in the wrong, it's the people who insult them who are wrong. This is pretty self-evident actually. If everyone made fun of your beliefs, would it be your fault or their
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs the backward way of thinking is to give children, at increasingly younger and disturbingly young ages mind you, condoms at school and tell them "if you decide to have sex, use this". its pretty much inviting them to do it. not to mention how in todays society its ok for kids to recieve birth control without a parents consent, and even cases where kids get abortions without parents consent. it giving children a license to have sex as they please, and the results are well seen.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen and on the last note, they are your standards. Just because you accept that they are someone else's (Gods) doesn't make them any less yours. You accept them as correct and live your life by them, so they are yours whether you believe them or not. Also, even if they were objective, they are only your subjective interpretation. Many people see the bible as metaphor, and not literal because it is their subjective analysis of the text. The same goes for literalists. Again, self-evident
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs and finally, they are not my standards. i had my own standards before i came to christ. they were like the worlds standards. i have confessed christ as my lord and saviour, and now live by the laws and statutes of the living god, but that doesnt make them mine. no human could/would ever have standards like gods. living by gods standards doesnt make them mine. ive just submitted the his lordship over my life. i do not "decide" whats right or wrong, god revealed that to us in his word.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen To continue on the assertion that they aren't your standards, that is completely false. To give you an idea of what I mean, there are many other religions in the world who hold the view that their god, and their standards are absolute. Why are your views correct and theirs are not? Would their belief not be every bit as devout as yours? They can't both be absolute truth, but all parties treat them as such. Are their beliefs subjective and yours objective?
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen To go a little further, what you read in the bible is entirely subjective. Though it can claim to be the objective word of god, in the end it's not god who's reading it, it's you. Because it is your mind that is interpreting it, choosing which passages are relevant to certain situations, which laws to uphold and which to throw by the wayside, it is entirely subjective. The bible condones many things that are considered intrinsically immoral, and others that are just silly.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen And until you can reconcile those facts, and even if you do, you must accept that how you read the bible in itself is a subjective matter, no matter if you believe that it is the objective word of god. Every experience we have is subjective, from your belief in god, to how we view colors, to how we perceive the world around us, to what we interpret out of any book, the bible included. This is self-evident.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen You are still deciding what standards you wish to live your life by, even if those standards are given to you by divine command. You still decide what is right or wrong because you decide to believe in something that tells you right and wrong. And just to say that it will send the world in a downward spiral if we don't adhere is false and flawed. There was a time when christianity ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs .. also, to deny the moral decay of america is to deny truth. this country was founded on christianity, biblical principles. over time, the bible and prayer, god, has been removed from schools etc, and the results are clear. marriage isnt viewed as sacred anymore, its no big deal, and theres even pushes to eliminate it as its being deemed by some as "pointless". why get married and make the committment when you can just move in together and not be bound? thats todays mindset.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen how do you tell which one is correct? How is your assertion that your moral truth is better than theirs in any way objective? It is subjective in nature. It is your decision to follow, your decision to believe and it is your decision to view the bible as truth. If it isn't then you don't have free will. If you don't have free will then the bible is false. Free will is predicated upon the notion that everything you do is your choice, and that includes what you believe.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen As soon as you are able to decide something, your decision by it's very nature is subjective, even if your belief is that something is objective, like divine standards of conduct. So, if it's your choice to follow these commandments that God has given to you, then your moral code, though dictated by god, is still is your decision and thus is subjective in nature.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs you can also look to the culture, things like movies and tv, music. not too long ago they refused to show elvis from the waist down because it was too "sexually suggestive and provocative". we had things like the hays code in regard to films and movies which strictly stood against things like graphic violence, sex or suggestive themes, coarse language. look what we have now. sex is glorified. its everywhere,just like violence. you really believe our society hasnt become more violent?
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen Just to make one thing crystal clear, your country was founded on enlightenment principles, not christian ones. The founding fathers were englishmen looking for englishmens rights, and a large number of them were deist and thought that religion had no place in politics. Read any number of Thomas Jeffersons letters, The treaty of Tripoli (signed by John Adams), The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine eetc etc. ad infinitum. They in no way founded the US on Christian principles.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs or look to the 1892 supreme court ruling in church of the holy trinity vs us, " Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." again, you ignore these facts as most of society does these days.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen Now, you say that I ignore facts. That isn't correct in the least. What I do is actually research these facts and make sure that I present them in the manner they were intended to be. If you actually looked into the history of America without selectively taking only what is relevant to your cause, you will find that most of what you assert is incorrect. The quotes are mined and the people are misrepresented. In both aspects you take them out of context.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs also, they arent my standards. you can try to rationalize that all you want, but it changes nothing. men arent capable of holy standards. if i made my own standards, i would be like the world, which is ok with murdering babies, which views sex and marriage as no big thing, etc. those are the standards of unholy men. i have submitted to gods standards. the whole idea of "everything is subjective" is just the worlds foolishness.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen Now about standards, this is what I'll say. I don't doubt that you believe that you're adhering to divine standards but that doesn't ipso facto make them objective. Think of it this way. Muslims believe with the exact same certainty that their moral compass is objective and given from god. Now, if you were both correct, there would be no contradiction or conflict between both your moral rules. But you can't both be correct because there is. So, one must not be objective right?
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen Now, I understand that you believe that your morality is objective, and that your standards are objective as well. The trouble is the reasoning you give is exactly the same as Muslims. There is no way to differentiate between the two (I'm speaking reasons why you believe, not the differences in the religious doctrines themselves). They both simply require faith, they both also think that their standards are not their own, but Gods.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen But as I've shown there isn't any difference between each of your justifications. They both require the same thing, and they both construe themselves as correct. The reason I say this is because the only reason you seem to think that they are objective is because you believe that they are objective. This doesn't change the fact that YOU are the one who is deciding to believe in something, therefore making the whole ordeal subjective. If it were objective, everyone would know it.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs how many school shootings, kids beating people to death, murder and rape in general... and sex is viewed just as you said, "just a normal thing". its just something to do for pleasure and fun to people now. and since 1973, roughly 052,008,665 babies have been aborted, stds are now common and widespread, more single parents/broken families. i could go on and on. to deny these things is false and flawed,but such is the case with those who deny that the child a mother carries is human.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen Again you need to study facts. There is a positive correlation between violence and puritan/religious thought. In places where sex isn't vilified or deemed impure there are demonstrably fewer cases of rape and sexual deviancy. School shootings and such are actually more prevalent in religious countries AKA the US. Though you may think that your country is turning away from God, it actually holds religion as being the most important factor in life.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs i know the facts. and i can discern lies when i see them too, and one of those is this idea your trying to get across that everything from violence,premarital sex, etc is because of religious thought. thats garbage. you completely avoid the real facts. look back in the not too distant history of this country when bible and prayer were still in schools, before the age of "political correctness and tolerance". it was unnacceptable to show people shaking their hips on tv!
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs compare that to now and look at how sex outside is viewed in todays society as "normal" and acceptable. look at how marriage was viewed in the past as compared to now. think of abortion, it would never have been tolerated but now it "a womans right, its her body", or people try, and fail, to justify that the child a woman carries "isnt a person". these are the results of a people moving away from god. THESE ARE THE FACTS, AND ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs and to make one thing clear, this country WAS founded on christ. james madison was the principal author of the constitution. he said this "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded." catch that? he said "in the laws of god upon which the constitution is founded". and yet you say "they in no way founded the us on christian principles". trying pretty hard to rewrite history huh? not working.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen First of all, an opinion is not a lie. I'm not lying to you, I'm stating what I see as problematic. Second of all I'm not saying that religion is the only reason these problems exist. They are a part of the problem, but not the whole problem in the least. What religion does do is stop inquiry and prevent further development because of its nature ie., unquestioning faith. Also, to think that women didn't have abortions until recently, or that people were somehow more "pure"
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs first, i never said that these things NEVER happened, ive acknowledged several times that of course some people still did them, but it wasnt common as it is today. and like ive pointed out,since 73 abortions total 052,008,665. 38 years,over 52 million babies. to deny that it is far more common and accepted is naive. the same with sex and how its viewed. you cant deny the difference. weve gone from deeming it unacceptable to show someone shaking their hips to sex everywhere on screen.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs the whole argument that its just "talked about more" is complete garbage. anyone can look at the facts and see the truth. claiming weak and false arguments like this solves nothing. as for james madison, you didnt answer the question. he was the principal author of the constitution, and he himself said "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded." he himself said it was founded on gods word.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs he also said prior to the previous comment "We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future ...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." john adams summed it up nicely "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen Okay, I'm going to give you many James Madison quotes, because what you're doing is selectively taking quotes and then interpreting them as you see fit.
"Strongly guarded... is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen "An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government."
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen "It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether"
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen There are many more quotes like this that advocate vehemently the separation of church and state. Their personal views on religion notwithstanding, the majority of founding fathers were deist, not christian. While some of them saw religion as a societal structure, it did not mean that they specifically believed it. john Adams was a devout man, but if you read the "treaty of Tripoli" he states very clearly that America is not a christian nation.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs its so funny to me that you talk of how "everything you think or believe, or experience is by definition subjective." then you say "im sorry you dont see it this way, but that is the truth." lol... its really a garbage argument. for instance, rape is always wrong. correct? theres nothing subjective about it. its always wrong. its the whole new age, everyone is their own god, decides for themself whats right and wrong mindset, and its foolish. truth is truth, and the truth is christ.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen According to the definition of "subjective" it's not wrong at all. I even accounted for the possibility of objective morality, I just understand that it's clearly only a subjective interpretation of what is objective. Understanding that there is behavior that is both beneficial and detrimental to society doesn't equate to an ultimate good or bad, it just means that within the context of humanity, certain actions are better than others. This is not "objective"
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen At least in the way you're making it out to be. There is no reason to believe that this is an ultimate or objective morality, just one that is good for us. It's not about right or wrong, it's about good consequences as opposed to bad ones.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen Though you might think that America is founded on christianity, I have given you many examples of how it is not, treaties signed, individuals quoted etc. Your need to support your claim by selective quote mining taken out of context demonstrates not that you haven't researched, but that you draw your conclusions before and look for corroborating evidence to support your narrow view. This is not how research, or finding truth works. It's dishonest to proselytize in this way.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs lol please.. i will take the principal author of the constitutions word when he said the constitution was "founded upon the laws of god", and that the whole "future and success of america is staked upon our ability to live according to the ten commandments of god". that is NOT taken out of context. say it is all you want, but everyone knows the truth, including you and all those who argue this country wasnt founded on christianity. you just dont like the truth.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen Yes, that's what I'm doing, suppressing the truth. You've taken one quote out of context and based your entire argument on it while disregarding the plethora of evidence to the contrary. you probably think that Thomas Jefferson wasn't a deist either (you know, the guy who wrote the declaration of independence) What about all those quotes I gave you? Are they irrelevant, or wrong? You shouldn't selectively choose the facts you wish to accept, and those you wish to ignore.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs youre doing the very thing you accuse me of. i was the first to post various quotes and even a court case. your only response has been to say "ive taken them out of context". thats false,and im calling you out on it. im going to give his exact words, and you explain how they are taken out of context. (con)
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs james madison ""We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.".. "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
explain how this is out of context.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs patrick henry : "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that his great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
how is that out of context?
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs john jay, the first us supreme court chief justice : “ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of OUR CHRISTIAN NATION, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life (Gen 2:7), Liberty ( II Cor 3:17), and the Pursuit of Happiness (Ecc 3:3)". Notice that it says that men are created ,not that they evolved. Unalienable or inalienable rights are God given rights. it concludes," with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence "
normaspleen 10 months ago
in may of 1774 a resolution was drafted by jefferson for a "day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer". april 15,1775,when the mass. provincial congress led by hancock declared "In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us,as men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments .. the 11th of May next be set apart as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer .. to confess the sins ..to implore the Forgiveness of transgression"
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs woodrow wilson knew and said that " America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements or righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scriptures." you also cannot hide the role christianity has played because gods word is found all over the place in our national monuments and buildings! for example : the lincoln memorial, inscribed with matt 18:7, the library of congress with verses from psalms, micah, prov on the walls.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs or in the supreme court building, where the words of the ten commandments are chiseled into marble slabs which hang directly over the seat of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. and state capitol buildings across america have scripture chisled into them, it goes on and on. theres no hiding it.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs you cannot hide the role christianity has played in our nations founding and history. you are indeed picking and choosing what you want to believe, twisting reality and intention to fit what you would like to see as the truth. like it or not, this country was founded on christ. and as john adams said "our constitution was made ONLY for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." this is evident today!
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen I;m pretty sure I never dismissed the fact that christianity played a ROLE in Americas history, my point is that it wasn't government sanctioned. A day of prayer is not exclusive to Christianity (btw, the resolution was written before the constitution or declaration of independence), nor does it claim to be. It doesn't "establish" a specific religion. One could very easily take that statement and pray to Allah.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen Also, John Adams is quoted quite clearly, and wrote into law the fact that America isn't any more a christian nation than it is a jewish or mohammedan one. As for the supreme court and the ten commandments, the only way it was able to circumvent the first ammendment was to argue that Moses was an example of a lawgiver, and the commandments examples of laws; not that they were the laws that should govern the country.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs nope, stop deflecting and answer the questions. you made a claim that i took madisons and other quotes out of context. i gave the quotes, you tell me how they are out of context. the reason you didnt is because they are not out of context, therefore you cannot. it is as madison said "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen What is extremely important to differentiate is what was codified in the constitution as law, and what the personal opinions of the founding fathers were. As well as this I could easily say that there were 74 founding fathers and the opinions of a select few who share your views does not constitute a majority, or lend any validity to your claim, or that all of these men shared the same opinion. When I accuse you of quote mining it is because even if they held these views, cont
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs just as i thought.. you make the claim, like all others that argue from your stance, that i took the words of so many "out of context", but then when asked in what way the words were out of context, you cannot answer the question directly. you say their views were not written into the constitution, but according to madisons words the constitution was founded on gods laws. maybe next time you claim something "out of context", be able to back it up.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen They are out of context because the founding of america is based not on the personal opinions of founders, but on what they legislated and codified. They did not "found" the country on christian principles but secular ones. Some of them might have been christian, but they were also secular, and they legislated secular values. Nowhere in any legal document did they espouse religious vitues, so their personal opinions as to why they did so have no merit or validity.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs quote from you : "They did not "found" the country on christian principles "..
quote from james madison: "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the LAWS OF GOD UPON WHICH THIS CONSTITUTION IS FOUNDED."
your argument fails.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen We can trade quotes all day long. What matters is what is written IN the constitution. Your aversion to accept that is distressing. Whether James Madison wrote the constitution and based it upon the laws of god is irrelevant. What actually was written is. I could give you many quotes but I think they will miss the point. You brought up John Adams before as being on your side, but he wasn't. He was a christian but he was also was a secularist... And so was Madison
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen On top of that Madison was merely one man, not THE founder, but one of many. To say that simply because he was quoted to have said that means nothing in the context of ALL the founders. Even if HE thought those things it really doesn't amount to much as he was just one of 74. The reason your argument fails is that it only takes into account one mans opinion, and not all of the founders. Again, you're just selectively using quotes.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs no, YOUR argument was that "the country was not founded upon christian principles", which is false. thats the point im trying to get across. i find it funny for someone to say it wasnt when the principal author of our constitution said himself that the constitution was indeed founded upon the laws of god. your arguments fail because they are not based on truth, which is plain for all to see, but rather on a view and agenda to remove the role christ played in our founding and country.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen This is ridiculous. I have given you plentiful evidence which showcases exactly what was intended by the first amendment, including Madison. One could easily interpret "Gods Laws" as general guidelines to follow without implying supernatural or absolute rules. As such it could also be said that even if you were correct, it still doesn't warrant the idea that it shouldn't change. The constitution was written not as gospel or unyielding. It has the ability to change.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen And by the way, I did answer the question directly. i demonstrated that even if they believed in certain christian principles that they were also adamant about America being a secular nation. There is no evidence that within the writings of any formal document that they espoused differently. In fact they very blatantly said the opposite. Seriously, look up the treaty of tripoli. It spells out in very clear language their intentions.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen They are not the views that were written into the constitution and shared by all of them. in fact, you seem to think that because one or two of them thought a certain way that there is reason to believe that it's the only reasoning behind anything. For instance, I can espouse the view that murder is wrong and justify it in a way that is completely different than your justification (Gods laws). Our outcome is the same but our principles are different. Doesn't change the outcome.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen Furthermore what they truly stood for was the separation of church and state. Even if they thought that beneath that people must adhere to gods laws it doesn't matter, the constitution is still supreme in law. They didn't codify "gods laws" in the constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say anything close to that. As the constitution is a legal document, the personal opinions of some of the founding fathers are of no consequence, as they aren't law.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen One must also say that the founding fathers were in support of slavery (the majority of them anyway), Jefferson thought that black people were lesser than whites. should we simply accept that he was correct in his opinion there as well simply by virtue of him being a founding father? No, of course not. What we take as their intentions are what they legislated, not their opinions after the fact, or the reasons behind what they wrote, and they didn't establish christianity as law
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen Now, the problem with your claim is that it America is supposed to be free. People are free to practice whatever religion they want, and the government should make no laws that show a preference of one religion over another. To say that America is a "Christian nation" is to miss the point. If the constitution is held to be absolute in law (which it is), then it contradicts itself if your assertion is true. Your claimis nothing more than an appeal to authority, and a poor one at that
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs you can try all you want to explain these away or brush them to the side, but the glaring truth of our foundation on christianity shines for all to see. and as far as the standards, i say again they are not mine. i didnt create them. men create their own standards, and it looks like what you see in the world. mens standards say sex is just a normal thing for whenever, with whoever. abortion is acceptable. violence, theft, etc. gods standard is complete holiness.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen in the fifties is a naive and juvenile assumption. Was there no corruption either? The reason it seems that way is because people didn't talk about it, not because those things didn't happen. Sweeping it under a rug and not looking at it doesn't solve any problems. As for James Madison, perhaps just a quote from him will do "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise? That doesn't sound very devout to me.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs i have submitted to gods standards and laws, not living by my own. as far as the muslims or whoever else, just because it construes itself as correct or claims islam the way doesnt make it so. its not. there is only ONE way. jesus said " i am the way, the truth, and the life. no one comes to the father except through me." i follow the living god, the one true gods standards. not my own.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen Also, you simply asserting that the standards are not your own doesn't change the fact that you subjectively choose to see them as objective. It's a fairly clear distinction. Though they may in fact be objective morality, the morals you choose are demonstrably subjective, and always will be for they rely on your decision to accept them as true. Everybody has things that they deem as good and bad, and everybody has reasons for these. Because you rely on the bible is no different
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen doesn't change this. It is merely a different way of determining what's right and wrong. I'm sorry you don't see it that way, but that is the truth. Your belief leads you to accept these things as objective, and I really do respect that, but it's still subjective because YOU have to accept is as true. Anything that you think, or belief, or experience is by definition subjective. To not accept this is to change the definition of objective and subjective completely.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs and as far as the foundation of the country, abortion, etc,we clearly disagree on these issues. i have studied and firmly believe and know without a doubt that this country was founded on biblical principles by god fearing men. and i am aware of the new age effort to rewrite that as well. it saddens me just as the ongoing slaughter of innocent babies in this country. but all of these sinful and wicked acts coincide with the moving away from god by the american people. god forgive us.
normaspleen 10 months ago
@normaspleen Oh yes, I almost forgot. The quote from the Treaty of Tripoli that was penned by John Adams is this "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]"
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen As for your assertion that the supreme court ruled in favor of a christian nation is both false and manipulative. The court case in question wasn't about religion in the least, it was about migrant workers. Furthermore, any mention of religion in the ruling are irrelevant and considered "dictum" The question in front of the court never had anything to do with a "Christian Nation" it was never part of the case, not should it be construed as such.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@normaspleen And coincidentally has the highest rate of crime among advanced and developed nations. These are FACTS, and are not in dispute. your version of morality has been proven to be false for the betterment of society, and for a general happy and productive life. Your "moral decay" of America is in fact non-existent except in the context of your religion. It has shown itself to have a negative effect on personal efficacy and well-being.
MrSchnuffs 10 months ago
@MrSchnuffs and finally, they are not MY standards. i have chosen to live by GODS standards, but that doesnt make them mine. i am a man, created by god. our standards and thoughts are nowhere near gods. if i lived by my standards, i would look as the world looks, deciding for myself what is right and wrong. but thats why we are having this argument, because the creation has decided to put itself in place of creator, and the consequences of it are sending the world into a downward spiral.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen Someone who spoke out against slavery would be maligned as well, but that is now considered noble, because black peoples rights were being infringed upon. Though they undoubtably felt ostracized and suffered "emotional distress" from this, they are considered noble. I only say this to drive home the fact that it is not the act in itself which is wrong, it is peoples preconceived notions of what is right that are.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@normaspleen To get back to my comment about natural. What I am implying is that sex is natural, marital or premarital. It is a biological function. Is it more than that, maybe, maybe not. That depends on who's doing it and for what reasons. On top of that, just because abstinence prevents pregnancy and stds 100% of the time isn't sufficient answer. 98% vs 100% are not that far apart. Again you seem to think that there is only one solution to the problem, there isn't.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@normaspleen You simply asserting that abstinence is the only way doesn't solve the problem in the least. In fact it adds to it. Studies have shown, as I've said before, that teens who are taught abstinence only end up having higher rates of stds and pregnancies. Why is this? It's because they all eventually end up having premarital sex, but they aren't given the education to combat stds and pregnancy without abstinence. This seems like a backward way of thinking, and more problematic as well.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@normaspleen One more thing. They are your standards even if you say they are somebody else's. It is your decision to believe that God commanded them, it is your decision to follow them, therefore they are your standards as well as whoever you attribute them to. It is your subjectivity that interprets the commandments as true. We all by nature determine our core values subjectively. There may be an objective morality, but out interpretations of what they might be are subjective.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs (con) also, you say things like "premarital sex is natural" and that "abstinence is ineffective and dangerous", and then say "i shouldnt hold others to my standards." you are doing the very thing youre telling me i shouldnt do. and also, to clarify, they are not MY standards. they are the commandments of the one true creator god. and wether you believe it or not, these commandments ARE indeed universal, and for all humans to follow, and each will give an account thereof one day.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen The truth is that most everyone has premarital sex, not because it's glorified, but because it's natural. What we need to do is not call these people "sinners", but try to alleviate the risks that can be associated with sex. This is the moral thing to do, not to teach some outdated doctrine that has no relevance in todays society, but to accept that it happens and move on from there. Even if it is "immoral" as you say, it doesn't help anyone to put your head in the sand about it.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@normaspleen On top of that, the problems you relate to premarital sex are unfounded and wrong. The only reason anyone has emotional problems over premarital sex would be because of the puritanical connotations that are imbued on it by people like you. There wouldn't be any emotional turmoil over sex if it weren't presented as an immoral and wrongful act. And those that don't think like you do about it have very different opinions on whether it is wrong or not.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@normaspleen The problem as I see it is that you're holding everyone up to your morality. You probably see it as an emotional problem if one doesn't think like you and that is horribly judgmental and unjustified. Not everyone sees the world through your eyes, or considers the same things immoral or wrong. Your "truth" isn't universal for all humans, and you shouldn't expect others to adhere to your moral rules.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs (con) there are undeniable physical and emotional risks involved with premarital sex, regardless of wether or not contraception is used. at best, contraception can only reduce the risk of pregnancy and std, abstinence 100% guarantees no pregnancy or disease. the center for disease control concluded itself that "condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD". to me, dangerous is telling young kids that using a condom makes "safe sex". thats a lie.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen Furthermore, teaching abstinence has been shown to be ineffective and in fact is downright dangerous. If you look up statistics of "abstinence only" teachings, there is a larger rate of stds (from not knowing how to use a condom) and more pregnancies (again from not knowing). The whole problem could be alleviated by presenting information about sex and safety, but when one takes an absolute stance on something, there can't be any exceptions. This is demonstrably destructive.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
You simply assert things without justifying them. Your belief doesn't constitute reason. you want my justification, here it is. What is the criteria for being human, what are our characteristics. here they are; sentience; emotionality; capacity to reason; self-awareness; and moral agency. I will note here that all of these characteristics do not need to be filled in order to be considered a person,just some of them.A fetus doesn't fill any of these criteria, thus shouldn't be considered a person
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs
(cont) and you said to you the criteria for being human is this: emotionality, capacity to reason, self awareness, moral agency, and because a fetus in the early stages doesnt demonstrate these things, it isnt human. thats nonsense. ive had loved ones and witnessed plenty of people with mental deficiency, etc, who have no moral compass or capacity to reason, or who have no self awareness or emotion. so by your logic, they are not or are no longer human. that logic is rediculous.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen First of all, I never said that they fetuses weren't human, I said they didn't fill the criteria for personhood. But as I said, they do not need to fill all of the criteria to be considered a person, so your argument falls flat. People with mental deficiencies still fill some of the criteria, thus they can be considered a person. If someone is just an empty shell, on the other hand, with no brain activity to fill any of the criteria, then I'd say it's permissible to end their life
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@normaspleen And why is it nonsense that I've given you criteria for personhood. What is the problem with it. I make a distinction between something being genetically human, and having the capacity to act like a human. If genetics were the only criteria and with our medical technology in cloning as advanced as it is, just scratching our noses constitutes a holocaust of potential humans. It's not me who is arguing the "potential" angle, it is you. You're saying that they are all potentially human
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@normaspleen you may think that my logic is ridiculous, but I really fail to see how it is. All you're doing is asserting that killing a fetus is murder. That's it, you haven't raised any reason why it is other than the fact that it is genetically human. But many things are genetically human, they can grow human tissue in labs - does that constitute something immoral? Is it wrong that we don't let these things grow further, after all they have the same DNA as us. Your position lacks any insight.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs
no, my position doesnt lack insight, it lacks foolish excuses being made to try and justify ending an unborn childs life. so far, your reasons to doubt a fetus's humanity have been its incapability to be claimed as a tax deduction, its lack of emotion, lack of morals, and bc a fetus doesnt fill these criteria, in your words it "thus shouldnt be considered a person". boy, these arguments are just flowing with logic and insight.... none of these excuses work. you cant justify murder.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen Ok, let's try a different tactic. What do you think should happen to women who have abortions? If it is premeditated murder as you say, they should be charged and incarcerated with life in prison, or perhaps even given the death penalty, right?
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs
obviously you cannot charge those who have had abortions for something deemed legal.abortion should have never been made legal,and should be made illegal now. in that case,yes, i find abortion to be murder. i remember hearing a case a while back of a pregnant woman being attacked while somewhere in the 1st trimester, and lost the baby. attacker was charged with the babies death. in that case, its murder to people but somehow when the mother kills it herself its not? makes no sense.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen Well, by that rational any woman who does anything that harms the baby while she is pregnant should be charged with assault. If she has a drink, or any other manner of things that is constituting an assault on the baby (I am not condoning this action btw) Look, by your standards the woman gives up all of her personal rights for nine months and this is just intuitively wrong. You think sex is immoral, that's fine; it's your prerogative.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@normaspleen But the choices you make in your life don't equate to the choices everybody must make. On top of that, there are many studies that show that legalizing abortions have a positive effect on society in many ways. Most unwanted pregnancies happen in poorer areas. When women have control over their bodies, this means arguably less poverty and crime. (the book freakonomics) Also, it gives women more efficacy over their lives, which is also beneficial to society.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@normaspleen when women have reproductive rights, they are able to continue with their careers and stay a valuable asset in the work force, which is the mark of truly advanced civilizations, and it usually goes hand in hand with economic success. In fact, many people have argued that in order for third world countries to progress, women need this efficacy for the countries themselves to prosper. Your position requires this rigid rule that every life is sacred, but you have yet to demonstrate it.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@normaspleen As I've said before, if every life were sacred, than why don't people do more for starving children in Africa? Why don't they try to fund more social programs for single mothers? Why don't they? Because the truth is that carrying the child to term and caring for it is punishment for an immoral act ie., sex. The sanctity of life means less to pro-life advocates than pro-choice. They don't care about the baby after it's born, the quality of life it will have because it's punishment.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs
every life IS sacred. youre trying to bring in completely seperate issues on world hunger and social programs. and your view shows your immorality. to you, carrying YOUR child to term and caring for it is "a punishment". to me, it is a child, a human being, and no one has a right to end its life for convenience sake. i guess thats where we differ, i dont view a child as a "punishment". this attitude is why abortion is so common in our country. its sad.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen It's not a separate issue, they are intrinsically related. If every life is sacred, then EVERY life is sacred, no matter if it's in Africa or anywhere else. So, if we go by the claim that everylife is sacred and deserves a chance to live or a life that's not full of pain and suffering than these issues should affect you as much as abortion does. Social programs to aid mothers who keep their child are few and far between. you think you'd be for these though, as they help your cause.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@normaspleen And by the way, I never said that I saw pregnancies as punishment, I'm saying that pro-lifers do this. When you view sex as immoral, the result of it (pregnancy out of wedlock etc) inevitably becomes punishment for a sin. If I thought that it was divine punishment, I would have to take the position that it should be carried to term - as part of the punishment. I don't see it that way at all though. How is that not clear?
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs
sex outside of marriage IS immoral, and yes, sinful. but that doesnt make pregnancy a punishment...dont know where you got that silly idea. the bible teaches that all are "fearfully and wonderfully made". as i said, all life is sacred, and parents are given the RESPONSIBILITY to care for, raise, and love the child god has created and given to them. but in todays society, its acceptable to have sex with anyone at anytime. sex is promoted and glorified. (cont)
normaspleen 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs (cont) there is no value of life anymore. women/ young girls have sex, get pregnant, and abort the baby if they dont want it. how many babies do you think have been aborted for no other reason than the mother/father just simply dont want a child at the time or dont feel ready? the pro choice group says its a womans "right", its her body, all while ignoring the life of the baby growing inside of the womb. its somehow perfectly acceptable to take its life. (cont)
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen Wait, why is sex outside of marriage sinful? And where in the bible does it say anything about abortions? Also, even if it is acceptable to have sex at any time, that has no bearing on if there isn't any value to life. That's a complete non-sequitur. Your whole argument now seems to hinge on this being a crime against God. What lunacy. How does God feel about the neglected starving children in third world countries. Why can't we work on making the lives of people who are (cont)
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs sex outside marriage is sinful bc almighty god said it is. and you say, "why dont we worry about the lives of people already born instead of worrying about the ones who arent", which is funny, bc you acknowledged the unborn as people. according to your logic, dont worry about the millions of babies being slaughtered yearly. forget about that for now. we can only focus on those already born. if you dont see the flaw in that, theres a problem.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen That's not an answer. At best it's an argument from authority. It offers no justification as to why sex outside of marriage is immoral. It simply states that because someone (God, or whoever) decrees something to immoral than it is. Forgive me if I try to field through the absurdities of that to try to justify my own conclusions. you have not placed a reasoned argument in opposition to abortion and you also place too much faith in an unknowable objective morality.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs i'll tell you what is intellectually dishonest, saying the baby is not a "person". please.. and fine, you say "a fetus is a human", well there you go. now, answer this question. if the fetus is indeed human, as you yourself just said, what is being destroyed when a person has an abortion? A HUMAN. you cannot pick and choose which humans its "moral" to kill, and which it would be considered murder to kill. continue fielding through the absurdity of your so called "arguments".
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen Yes, because making distinctions is a bad thing? I said that they were genetically human. A fetus isn't a person, that is pretty self-evident. Also, we do have the ability to pick and choose who lives and dies. Capital punishment is an example, wars are another. In fact, people who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors also "pick and choose" who is allowed to live and die. Though they are extreme cases, they do show that we do pick who can live and die.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs you didnt answer the question. you admitted the fetus was human. if you destroy the fetus, what are destroying then. the answer is human life. and comparing things such as death penalty for those guilty of murdering and other horrible crimes or those lost killed in war to a baby in the womb being aborted is silly and you know it. youre really reaching. and ive already told you why sex outside of marriage is immoral. god is very clear on this matter in his word, the bible. (con)
normaspleen 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs (con) the bible is also very clear on the issue of murder. god is so holy that he said that "he who hates his brother is guilty of murder". psalm 139:13-16 tells us that god formed us in the womb, and that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. exodus 21:22-23 speaks of the loss of baby in the womb as a crime. the bible is very clear. you can try to explain it away or simply choose not to believe, it doesnt change the reality of it and the fact that all will give an account to god.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen Well, there are passages from exodus that state that abortions (miscarriages caused by abuse) are not considered as bad as murder. You're whole argument hinges on murder being bad (which is correct), but doesn't make a case for when something is murder. Again, you're asserting something without justifying it. So, to answer you question, yes the fetus is human. If we destroy the fetus... surprise, surprise, what we are destroying is a fetus. A human fetus, but a fetus nonetheless.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
@MrSchnuffs i dont have to justify the bible. it doesnt matter whether you like it or not, its truth. as the bible says, "each man is appointed once to die, and after that to face judgement." everyone will give an account to the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob to whose holy standard we are COMMANDED to live by. when you destroy a fetus, you destroy and prevent a human from entering the world. thats murder. just saying.
normaspleen 11 months ago
@normaspleen Look, if you say that something is th truth, you need to be able to justify why you believe it is. What is it about the moral guidance of the bible that makes it the truth? It is actually the most important question. Why would we be COMMANDED by God to do anything. Why would just being subservient to him get u